Experience the Quality With Free LSAT Exam Questions That Helps Candidates Pass

The reasoning suffers from multiple flaws: correlation ≠ causation (A), ignoring confounds like athlete skill (B), and conflating preference with performance (C). Since all apply, D is correct.

This is a textbook LSAT flaw trap—advertising logic that overstates causality.

Choice A provides direct causal evidence: people stopped driving because of the charges, which explains reduced traffic.

Choice B introduces an alternative cause, weakening the inference. Choice C contradicts expectations but doesn’t strengthen. Choice D is irrelevant. LSAT strengthening questions often hinge on direct evidence of behavioral change tied to the proposed cause—A provides that.

The passage acknowledges both sides: urban beekeeping is touted as helpful, but it may heighten competition; advocates propose mitigating features; the author then reframes the issue by emphasizing the “more pressing question” of whether attention to honeybees diverts resources from habitat restoration benefiting many pollinators. That rhetorical move—raising a broader, policy-level concern—signals a nuanced evaluation whose purpose is to redirect priorities, not to deliver an unequivocal condemnation or endorsement. Thus, B accurately reflects both the balanced tone and the prescriptive pivot toward habitat restoration.

Choice A is too strong; the author does not claim “unquestionably harms.” Choice C contradicts the text; the author says diversity may mitigate competition but doesn’t state elimination. Choice D introduces an unsupported assertion not present in the passage. On RC questions testing main purpose, look for global cues: balancing language (“yet,” “advocates counter”) and a culminating sentence that reframes the debate. Those features together point to B’s characterization of a nuanced assessment that shifts emphasis to broader, systemic solutions.

To validly attribute the performance difference to the study method (spaced repetition vs. cramming), potential confounds must be controlled. Choice A establishes group equivalence at baseline, ruling out preexisting differences as the explanation for post-test outcomes. With comparable initial knowledge, the superior recall can more plausibly be credited to spacing. This aligns with LSAT objectives on experimental reasoning: strengthening causal claims by ensuring randomization or equivalence of groups and eliminating alternative explanations.

Choice B introduces an ancillary feature (gamification) that could confound the causal inference by making the app more engaging; it does not strengthen the inference without showing it is irrelevant. Choice C references anxiety but doesn’t connect it causally or show group equivalence in other respects. Choice D is background information about the importance of vocabulary, not about causation in the study. Thus A best supports the causal conclusion by reinforcing internal validity—the core mechanism tested in questions about studies and experiments.

The planner claims causation. For this to hold, it must be true that the decrease was not caused by other environmental regulations or policies. Choice A eliminates alternative causes and is the required assumption.

Choice B is irrelevant. Choice C may be true, but natural fluctuation does not account for the specific claim. Choice D is minor background. LSAT assumption questions often hinge on ruling out rival causes, making A correct.