October 2010 LSAT Section 3 Question 2

Since there is no survival value in an animal's having an organ that is able to function when all its other organs ha...

Julie-V on June 5, 2019

Q2 Main Point

Hi LSAT Max! I had trouble seeing why sentence 3 from the stimulus is the overall main point instead of sentence 1. I went over the discussion questions that also had similar questions and broke down the stimulus to better understand the explanations I've seen in this lesson. I'm still a little fuzzy on this question, so I was wondering if someone could help clarify. So sentence 3 is the main point because it states that "research efforts NOW are justified". Sentences 1, 2 and 4 support this claim because making the planet inhabitable "is probably within reach" (sentence 1) and it "could help in understanding atmospheric changes" (sentence 4) due to the research efforts being justified. Sentence 1 looked more appealing to me because "probably within the reach" sounded like an argument and I used that judgement to decide that it sounded like the main point. How can I avoid this in the future? Also, I was wondering if "besides" was an indicator that the sentence preceding is the conclusion. Thank you in advance for your help!

Replies

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

Ravi on June 7, 2019

@Julie-V,

Happy to help. "Besides" often introduces a premise, but it doesn't
necessarily mean that what's before it is the main conclusion. What's
before it could be a subsidiary conclusion/intermediate premise and
not the main conclusion.

One method to help you see which sentence is the overall conclusion is
to put both sentences next to each other with the word "because"
between them.

It is probably within the reach of human technology to make the
climate of Mars inhabitable BECAUSE research efforts now are justified
if there is even a chance of making another planet inhabitable.

Does that make sense? Nope, it doesn't.

Research efforts now are justified if there is even a chance of making
another planet inhabitable BECAUSE It is probably within the reach of
human technology to make the climate of Mars inhabitable.

This, on the other hand, makes sense. This tells us that the third
sentence is being supported by the first sentence and is the overall
conclusion of the argument.

Hope this helps. Let us know if you have any other questions!

bihaoqing@gmail.com on March 3, 2021

Would it make sense this way: if the research efforts are not justified, it will not be possible the human technology to make the climate of Mars inhabitable is within the reach. Therefore, the first sentence is the conclusion and the third sentence (actual conclusion) is the premise of it.

Emil-Kunkin on February 24 at 04:18PM

I don't think that makes sense. The fact that something isn't justified doesn't mean it isn't possible!