- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8950
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Sat Jul 01, 2017 7:56 am
#36659
Complete Question Explanation
Strengthen Except. The correct answer choice is (E)
A key to success on the LSAT Logical Reasoning section is to read aggressively and to personalize each
argument. Test takers who perform best on this section are those who become actively immersed in
each stimulus. For this stimulus, try to picture the scene at the Fenwicks’ home. There are two possible
culprits for the broken bottles: the Fenwicks’ pet cat and neighborhood children. The Fenwicks suspect
the neighborhood children, and thus one must sort through the five answer choices to find the one piece
of evidence that does not strengthen their suspicion; that is, the one answer choice that does not make it
seem more likely that the neighborhood children broke the two bottles.
Of course, the test makers have several different options for the correct answer choice to this question.
They could include information that refutes the children’s involvement in the incident, implies the cat’s
involvement, or has no effect on the hypothesis. As predicted, the credited response here, answer choice
(E), neither supports nor undermines the Fenwicks’ hypothesis.
Answer choice (A): According to the stimulus, there was no sign of forced entry, and according to the
neighbor, the back door may have been open while the Fenwicks were away. If this is true, it helps
support the Fenwicks’ hypothesis that they left the back door unlocked and that someone could have
entered through it. One cannot know how the door closed; it may have been the neighborhood children,
the Fenwicks’ cat, or just the wind. But the mere fact that the back door may have been open and was not
forced suggests that it was probably unlocked, and this lend some credibility to the possibility that the
neighborhood kids could have entered the Fenwicks’ home and broken the bottles.
Answer choice (B): The presence of children’s footprints on the back porch certainly lends credence to
the hypothesis that children entered the Fenwicks’ home through the back door. Thus answer choice (B)
strengthens the conclusion and is incorrect.
Answer choice (C): This answer choice supports the Fenwicks’ hypothesis by attacking an alternative
explanation. The Fenwicks believe neighborhood children broke the bottles, and that the Fenwicks’ cat
was not responsible. It is unlikely that the Fenwicks left their refrigerator door open while they were
away and more unlikely still that their cat could open the door. Therefore, if the bottles had been in the
refrigerator when the Fenwicks left on vacation, then the cat was probably not responsible for breaking
them. Reducing the probability of an alternate cause lends strength to the other possible causes; in this
case, the possibility that neighborhood children are responsible.
Answer choice (D): If neighborhood children were suspected of several recent, nearby burglaries, then
it seems more likely that they may also be involved in this incident. Although they have not been proven
guilty of other burglaries, the implication that they have been involved in other burglaries makes it more
probable that they were involved in breaking the two bottles in the Fenwicks’ home. Like answer choice
(B), this evidence directly supports the Fenwicks’ hypothesis that neighborhood children entered their
home and broke the bottles.
Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. The two explanations most consistent with
the evidence presented in the stimulus are that neighborhood children broke the bottles – the Fenwicks’
stated hypothesis – or that the Fenwicks’ pet cat broke the bottles. What effect would the length of the
Fenwicks’ vacation have on the relative probability of each explanation? None. Each additional day of
vacation is one more day during which either the children or the cat could have broken the bottles. Since
this answer choice does not make either explanation more or less likely to be correct, it does nothing to
support the Fenwicks’ hypothesis.
Strengthen Except. The correct answer choice is (E)
A key to success on the LSAT Logical Reasoning section is to read aggressively and to personalize each
argument. Test takers who perform best on this section are those who become actively immersed in
each stimulus. For this stimulus, try to picture the scene at the Fenwicks’ home. There are two possible
culprits for the broken bottles: the Fenwicks’ pet cat and neighborhood children. The Fenwicks suspect
the neighborhood children, and thus one must sort through the five answer choices to find the one piece
of evidence that does not strengthen their suspicion; that is, the one answer choice that does not make it
seem more likely that the neighborhood children broke the two bottles.
Of course, the test makers have several different options for the correct answer choice to this question.
They could include information that refutes the children’s involvement in the incident, implies the cat’s
involvement, or has no effect on the hypothesis. As predicted, the credited response here, answer choice
(E), neither supports nor undermines the Fenwicks’ hypothesis.
Answer choice (A): According to the stimulus, there was no sign of forced entry, and according to the
neighbor, the back door may have been open while the Fenwicks were away. If this is true, it helps
support the Fenwicks’ hypothesis that they left the back door unlocked and that someone could have
entered through it. One cannot know how the door closed; it may have been the neighborhood children,
the Fenwicks’ cat, or just the wind. But the mere fact that the back door may have been open and was not
forced suggests that it was probably unlocked, and this lend some credibility to the possibility that the
neighborhood kids could have entered the Fenwicks’ home and broken the bottles.
Answer choice (B): The presence of children’s footprints on the back porch certainly lends credence to
the hypothesis that children entered the Fenwicks’ home through the back door. Thus answer choice (B)
strengthens the conclusion and is incorrect.
Answer choice (C): This answer choice supports the Fenwicks’ hypothesis by attacking an alternative
explanation. The Fenwicks believe neighborhood children broke the bottles, and that the Fenwicks’ cat
was not responsible. It is unlikely that the Fenwicks left their refrigerator door open while they were
away and more unlikely still that their cat could open the door. Therefore, if the bottles had been in the
refrigerator when the Fenwicks left on vacation, then the cat was probably not responsible for breaking
them. Reducing the probability of an alternate cause lends strength to the other possible causes; in this
case, the possibility that neighborhood children are responsible.
Answer choice (D): If neighborhood children were suspected of several recent, nearby burglaries, then
it seems more likely that they may also be involved in this incident. Although they have not been proven
guilty of other burglaries, the implication that they have been involved in other burglaries makes it more
probable that they were involved in breaking the two bottles in the Fenwicks’ home. Like answer choice
(B), this evidence directly supports the Fenwicks’ hypothesis that neighborhood children entered their
home and broke the bottles.
Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. The two explanations most consistent with
the evidence presented in the stimulus are that neighborhood children broke the bottles – the Fenwicks’
stated hypothesis – or that the Fenwicks’ pet cat broke the bottles. What effect would the length of the
Fenwicks’ vacation have on the relative probability of each explanation? None. Each additional day of
vacation is one more day during which either the children or the cat could have broken the bottles. Since
this answer choice does not make either explanation more or less likely to be correct, it does nothing to
support the Fenwicks’ hypothesis.