skip to Main Content

Conclusion Questions on the LSAT Test

Conclusion Questions on the LSAT TestThis is the third in a series of lesson articles about conclusions on the LSAT test. The series includes the following articles:

Conclusion Questions on the LSAT Test
 
Try your hand at the following LSAT question. Answer the question before moving on and reading the explanation. Remember the four-step TestSherpa method for Logical Reasoning:

  1. Read the question stem
  2. Read and paraphrase the stimulus
  3. Prephrase an answer
  4. Eliminate the wrong answers

1.      Recently, environmentalists have argued that the government should stop adding fluoride to our water supply. I think this is wrong. I support adding fluoride to our water supply for the same reason I support adding iodine to common table salt. I admit that the addition of iodine to table salt has proven benefits and is far less controversial than the addition of fluoride to the water supply. Still, I wonder if the same environmentalists who argue against fluoride would argue against iodine.

Which of the following is the author’s main point?

(LSAT Tip: Before we show you the potential answer choices, try to come up with your own prephrase of the answer. When you’re ready, move on  to reading the answer choices.)

(A)   The addition of fluoride to our water supply should continue.
(B)    Fluoride should be considered to be as safe and beneficial as iodine.
(C)    The government should continue any efforts it feels are in the public’s best interests.
(D)    Environmentalists are unable to recognize the benefits of iodine in table salt.
(E)     Environmentalists should not be believed in matters of public health.

Have you made your selection? If so, let’s review a discussion of the answer choices for the LSAT Conclusion question.

First, you know from reading the question stem that this is a conclusion question. Second, as you read the stimulus, what was the author’s call to action? What did the author want you to do? The author wanted to keep adding fluoride to the water supply. You might have underlined the words “I think this is wrong,” which is how the author stated her conclusion. 

Answer choice (A) matches this prephrase and is the right answer. Now let’s see why the wrong answers were wrong.

(B)    Fluoride should be considered to be as safe and beneficial as iodine.

The author may believe this (we don’t know since it is out of scope), but this can’t be the main point. Iodine is only mentioned to support the main point, as material for a premise. It is an analogy, and analogies are never the main point of an argument. 

(C)    The government should continue any efforts it feels are in the public’s best interests.

This seems to match the spirit of the argument, but it is also out of scope. All we know about is how the author feels about fluoride, not other programs.

(D)    Environmentalists are unable to recognize the benefits of iodine in table salt.

Out of scope. We don’t know how the environmentalists came to their conclusions.

(E)     Environmentalists should not be believed in matters of public health.

Environmentalists should not be believed? Not only is that out of scope, the choice of words is too extreme for this author.

 In the next article we wil discuss LSAT Secrets for Conclusions.