- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8950
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Sat Jul 01, 2017 10:19 am
#36698
Complete Question Explanation
Main Point, CE. The correct answer choice is (C)
The argument opens with a marine biologist stating that scientists have long wondered why the
fish around coral reefs are so colorful. One possible explanation, the biologist observes, is that the
coral reefs themselves may be quite colorful, thus providing the fish with a suitable environment
for camouflage. In the last half of the stimulus, the biologist rejects this hypothesis by asserting
that “this suggestion” (i.e. that colorful fish are camouflaged by the coral reefs) is mistaken. The
biologist’s conclusion is based upon the premise that since most corals are relatively dull browns and
greens, a coral reef stripped of its fish would be monochromatic, i.e. not colorful.
Your ability to quickly identify the correct answer to a Main Point question is directly tied to your
understanding of the structure of the argument and its conclusion. Since the correct answer is often
simply a paraphrase of the conclusion, test makers are prone to hiding the conclusion by introducing
competing viewpoints and/or subsidiary conclusions in order to increase the level of difficulty of the
question. The argument/counterargument structure can thus be summarized as follows:
Argument (“one suggestion”):
the conclusion contains the following causal reasoning structure:
Cause
Effect
Camouflage 
Colorful fish
Counterargument (“marine biologist”):
occurs (colorful fish) without the cause (colorful reefs). This is a common way to attack causal
arguments on the LSAT.
The key here is to avoid getting distracted by the abundance of detail and focus instead on the key
elements that point to the marine biologist’s main conclusion. Note, for instance, that whenever the stimulus begins by describing one possible explanation for a given phenomenon, the author’s
conclusion will most likely counter it. Also, Main Point questions are especially likely to have their
conclusions “hidden” somewhere in the middle of the stimulus, without a clear conclusion indicator.
In fact, the conclusion indicator “therefore” (line 4) is used in a somewhat misleading way to
indicate not the author’s main conclusion, but rather the opposing viewpoint.
Answer choice (A): The hypothesis that fish are camouflaged by the bright colors of the coral reefs
is not the main conclusion of the argument, but rather the opposing viewpoint that the author claims
is mistaken. Answers containing opposing viewpoints are frequent decoys in Main Point questions.
Answer choice (B): Even though many animal species use camouflage to avoid predators, this is a
premise for the opposing viewpoint that the author asserts is mistaken.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice, as it matches our prephrase of the
conclusion.
Answer choice (D): While a reef stripped of its fish is indeed monochromatic, this is a premise used
in support of the conclusion that camouflage cannot explain the bright colors of the fish. Factual
evidence is rarely the main point of the argument, because such evidence is almost always used in
support of another idea.
Answer choice (E): Although the author did observe that the corals in coral reefs are mostly
dull hues of brown and green, this is a premise used to explain why a reef stripped of its fish is
monochromatic, and therefore unable to provide camouflage for the colorful fish. Do not fall into the
trap of assuming that the last sentence of the stimulus will always contain the conclusion: oftentimes,
the conclusion is hidden somewhere else the argument, especially in Main Point questions.
Main Point, CE. The correct answer choice is (C)
The argument opens with a marine biologist stating that scientists have long wondered why the
fish around coral reefs are so colorful. One possible explanation, the biologist observes, is that the
coral reefs themselves may be quite colorful, thus providing the fish with a suitable environment
for camouflage. In the last half of the stimulus, the biologist rejects this hypothesis by asserting
that “this suggestion” (i.e. that colorful fish are camouflaged by the coral reefs) is mistaken. The
biologist’s conclusion is based upon the premise that since most corals are relatively dull browns and
greens, a coral reef stripped of its fish would be monochromatic, i.e. not colorful.
Your ability to quickly identify the correct answer to a Main Point question is directly tied to your
understanding of the structure of the argument and its conclusion. Since the correct answer is often
simply a paraphrase of the conclusion, test makers are prone to hiding the conclusion by introducing
competing viewpoints and/or subsidiary conclusions in order to increase the level of difficulty of the
question. The argument/counterargument structure can thus be summarized as follows:
Argument (“one suggestion”):
- Premise 1: Many animal species use camouflage to avoid predators
Premise 2: Coral reefs are colorful
Conclusion: The fish are camouflaged by the reefs
the conclusion contains the following causal reasoning structure:
Cause
EffectCamouflage
Colorful fishCounterargument (“marine biologist”):
- Premise 1: Most corals are relatively dull browns and greens
Sub. Conclusion: A reef stripped of its fish is monochromatic
Main Conclusion: The hypothesis that the fish are colorful because they are camouflaged
by the reefs is mistaken.
occurs (colorful fish) without the cause (colorful reefs). This is a common way to attack causal
arguments on the LSAT.
The key here is to avoid getting distracted by the abundance of detail and focus instead on the key
elements that point to the marine biologist’s main conclusion. Note, for instance, that whenever the stimulus begins by describing one possible explanation for a given phenomenon, the author’s
conclusion will most likely counter it. Also, Main Point questions are especially likely to have their
conclusions “hidden” somewhere in the middle of the stimulus, without a clear conclusion indicator.
In fact, the conclusion indicator “therefore” (line 4) is used in a somewhat misleading way to
indicate not the author’s main conclusion, but rather the opposing viewpoint.
Answer choice (A): The hypothesis that fish are camouflaged by the bright colors of the coral reefs
is not the main conclusion of the argument, but rather the opposing viewpoint that the author claims
is mistaken. Answers containing opposing viewpoints are frequent decoys in Main Point questions.
Answer choice (B): Even though many animal species use camouflage to avoid predators, this is a
premise for the opposing viewpoint that the author asserts is mistaken.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice, as it matches our prephrase of the
conclusion.
Answer choice (D): While a reef stripped of its fish is indeed monochromatic, this is a premise used
in support of the conclusion that camouflage cannot explain the bright colors of the fish. Factual
evidence is rarely the main point of the argument, because such evidence is almost always used in
support of another idea.
Answer choice (E): Although the author did observe that the corals in coral reefs are mostly
dull hues of brown and green, this is a premise used to explain why a reef stripped of its fish is
monochromatic, and therefore unable to provide camouflage for the colorful fish. Do not fall into the
trap of assuming that the last sentence of the stimulus will always contain the conclusion: oftentimes,
the conclusion is hidden somewhere else the argument, especially in Main Point questions.