#14 - Currently, no satellite orbiting Earth is at

[Dave Killoran]

Complete Question Explanation

Method-AP. The correct answer choice is (D).

When asked what role a claim plays in an argument, your task is to determine whether the claim in question is a premise, a conclusion, both, or some extraneous statement of no value (which it won't be for these questions because if it was, they wouldn't ask about it). Premises give support to other claims in the argument, while conclusions get support. Sometimes an answer is both a premise and a conclusion, and we call that an intermediate or subordinate conclusion.

The argument part under consideration here is the second half of the first sentence, the portion that is introduced by "but." Let's walk back through what we see in this argument to make a determination of what role this statement plays in the argument.

The argument begins by presenting a factual situation: "Currently, no satellite orbiting Earth is at significant risk of colliding with other satellites or satellite fragments, ..." The next statement follows the "but" and makes a claim, that the collision risk is "likely to increase dramatically in the future." Essentially, the first sentence has said "everything is fine now, but it;s getting way worse in the future." That naturally raises a question: Why? Why is it getting worse? Right away, that tells you that the portion after "but" is a conclusion of some sort, because when a statement needs some explanation and forces you to ask "Why?", it is a conclusion and what follows the "Why?" are premises.

So, the next sentence is indeed a premise, in part indicated by the "After all" which precedes it. And it offers some explanation for why things will get worse: as soon as we have a collision, we'll get a lot of new fragments, and each can cause other collisions. That's helpful, and then the next sentence adds more to that explanation: each subsequent collision will then cause more fragments, and so on, resulting in debris everywhere. Note that this last sentence could be seen as an intermediate conclusion of sorts because it goes further than the prior sentence, but then adds support to the main conclusion. Labelling it as such is not incorrect.

The final two sentences offer up a scenario of that provides a causal chain of why the author thinks things will get worse. Note: the causality here isn't relevant to the answer, it's just helps place all this in perspective.

Considered abstractly, the argument appears as follows, where everything is built around helping to support the claim in the second half of the first sentence:

• Premise: First part of first sentence
  
  Conclusion: Second part of first sentence
  
  Premise: Second sentence:
  
  Premise: Third sentence.

With the above in hand, you should seek an answer that describes that the claim in question is the main conclusion of the argument.


Answer choice (A): As shown above, the claim in question is supported by the following sentences, so that portion is wrong (and thus this answer is automatically wrong). Additionally, this is the conclusion, not a supporting piece so that portion is wrong too. an answer that is wrong at every stage

Answer choice (B): Just like answer choice (A), this is a supported claim, so this answer is wrong. And additionally, this isn't the base premise for an intermediate conclusion, and so that portion is incorrect as well.

Answer choice (C): This describes an intermediate conclusion, but the claim in question does not support anything else, so this answer is just a distraction.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice, and matches the prephrase we produced.

Answer choice (E): The conclusion is essential to the argument, so this answer is incorrect.

[cardinal2017]

I know it is an Method of Reasoning ---AP Question, and I went to B) bx I mistakenly thought the final conclusion is something at the end of the story

and so thought the dangerous debris cluttered in the space is what the author was ultimately trying to warn us of.

UGH..

Is 'after all' always a premise indicator? I'm confused.

[Adam Tyson]

Hey Cardinal, thanks for asking. One thing to look out for in Method-AP questions, and also in Main Point questions, is complex arguments with multiple conclusions. Also, be aware that the main conclusion never needs to be at the end of the stimulus, and in those question types they often like to play "hide the ball" on us and put the main conclusion elsewhere, maybe at the very beginning. It's not uncommon to see an intermediate conclusion at the end of the stimulus, because the authors know that many of us will mistakenly assume that's the main conclusion.

"After all" is almost always a premise indicator, and never a conclusion indicator. Why? Because it means "here's why" or "this explains it", and those are premise-y ideas, not conclusion indicators.

Now, think of the relationship between what you thought was the conclusion and the claim they asked us about. Ignore the rest of the argument for this part. Here is where we figure out which claim is supporting the other, and I will be paraphrasing to keep it simple.

Does "the risk is going to get worse" support "there's going to be a lot of junk flying around"? Or, does "there's going to be a lot of junk flying around" support "the risk is going to get worse"? I think it's pretty clearly the latter, not the former, and that proves that "lots of junk flying around" cannot be the main conclusion. Main conclusions are selfish - they get all the support but give none in return. In this case, "the risk is going to get worse" supports nothing, but gets plenty of support. That's how you know it's the main conclusion - it's selfish!

I hope that helped. Beware of those complex arguments with conclusions in the beginning or middle and, sometimes, with additional conclusions thrown into the mix. Keep up the hard work!

[Sparklingfairy96]

Can I please have some clarification on why D is the answer but not C?

[Malila Robinson]

Hi Sparklingfairy96,
Answer C sounds like it is describing a sub-conclusion(secondary conclusion/other conclusion/etc.). But the sentence they are asking about is the main conclusion, which means it is not supporting any of the other sentences, instead it is being supported by the other sentences. That leads to Answer D being the correct choice.
Hope that helps!
-Malila

[ashnicng]

Hello! I just want to double check that I'm labelling the various parts of this argument correctly. I've attached a photo of the annotated stimulus.

[admin note: photo removed due to LSAC copyright regulations. We have added the relevant portions in partial quotations below.]

P=Premise
"Currently, no satellite ... satellite fragments,"
"After all ... The resulting collisions will produce many more fragments, and so on"

IC = Intermediary Conclusion
"causing the space around Earth to become quite heavily cluttered with dangerous debris"

C= Conclusion
"but the risk of such a collision is likely to increase dramatically in the future"

Thanks so much!!

[Stephanie Oswalt]

Hi ashnicng!

Thanks for your question! Unfortunately, LSAC copyright regulations prohibit posting LSAT question text in full, so I had to remove your attached image. I updated your post with partial quotes to indicate the P, IC, and C as you had noted in your image.

Thanks!

[James Finch]

Hi ashnicng,

Looks good! Always be on the lookout for intermediate conclusions in Main Point and Method questions.

Good work!

[shibascream]

How is the conclusion not "The resulting collisions will produce many more fragments, and so on, causing the space around Earth to become quite heavily cluttered with dangerous debris"? I selected answer choice (B).

I organized it in my head as follows:

[Premise] The risk of such a collision is likely to increase dramatically in the future, therefore [Conclusion} causing the space around the Earth to become quite heavily cluttered with dangerous debris.

So in other words, since there is going to be a greater risk of a collision happening in the future, that will make it so that there's a lot of debris cluttering the space around Earth.

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Shiba,

I've rewritten the explanation here, which hopefully makes this clearer.

In your case I agree that you have a conclusion at the end, but not the main conclusion. I think the intermediate nature of that last sentence was the issue.

Thanks!