- A school district reports that, after introducing an online homework portal, the percentage of students turning in homework on time rose from 72% to 83%. During the same semester, the district also adopted a stricter late-work policy that reduced partial credit for late submissions. Because students respond strongly to grading policies, the district concludes that the portal itself did not significantly improve on-time submissions; the stricter policy did. Thus, if the district keeps the portal but returns to the old late-work policy, on-time submission rates will fall back near 72%. The answer to which one of the following questions would be most helpful in evaluating the argument?
Answer: Did on-time submission rates increase for classes that used the portal but did not enforce the stricter late-work policy?
The district attributes the improvement in on-time submissions entirely to the stricter late-work policy, dismissing the portal's contribution. To evaluate this claim, we need to know whether the portal improved submissions even without the stricter policy—essentially, we need a control group. Answer C provides exactly this by asking about classes that used the portal but didn't enforce the stricter policy, which would isolate the portal's independent effect. Answer B about types of homework might seem relevant since different assignments could affect submission rates, but it doesn't help us separate the portal's impact from the policy's impact. When an argument dismisses one cause in favor of another based on simultaneous implementation, look for information about situations where only one change occurred.
- A streaming service executive argues that releasing an entire season of a show at once will increase subscriber retention. When the service released one recent series all at once, social-media discussion spiked and cancellations that month were unusually low. The executive infers that binge-watching makes viewers more invested and thus less likely to cancel. Therefore, the executive concludes that adopting the all-at-once release strategy for more series will reduce cancellations over time. The conclusion depends largely on whether the low cancellation rate was caused by the release strategy rather than by the particular popularity of that one series.
Which one of the following would be most useful to know in evaluating the executive's argument?
Answer: Was the series that was released all at once significantly more popular than the service's typical series regardless of release strategy?
Here, the executive's central argument is that all-at-once releases will curb cancellations by fostering investment, drawn from one series' low churn. This hinges on whether that outcome stemmed from the strategy or the show's inherent appeal. Choice B addresses this by asking if the series was unusually popular anyway, checking for confounding popularity. Something like C, on new subscribers, adds growth details but doesn't influence if the strategy drove retention. With evaluate questions, target the variant that questions uniqueness at the decision point, separating method from exceptional cases.
- A homeowner claims that installing a smart thermostat will significantly lower heating costs. A neighbor installed one and reported a 12% drop in winter energy bills. The homeowner reasons that smart thermostats reduce waste by automatically lowering temperatures when the house is unoccupied, and thus they should reduce energy use. Therefore, the homeowner concludes that installing a smart thermostat in this house will lower heating costs by a similar amount. The argument hinges on whether this household's current heating schedule leaves substantial room for reduction when the home is unoccupied.
Which one of the following would be most useful to know in evaluating the homeowner's argument?
Answer: How often is the homeowner's house unoccupied for extended periods during winter weekdays?
In evaluating this argument, the homeowner's central contention is that a smart thermostat will cut heating costs by 12% like the neighbor's, based on reducing waste during unoccupied times. This pivots on unknown facts about whether the home's schedule allows similar savings opportunities. Choice C precisely addresses this by asking how often the house is empty on winter weekdays, revealing potential for automated reductions. A trap like A, comparing furnace ages, offers equipment details but doesn't influence if usage patterns enable comparable efficiencies. For evaluate questions, hone in on the option that tests the applicability assumption at the decision point, distinguishing transferable benefits from situational mismatches.
- A beverage company tested a new bottle design in one region. In that region, customer complaints about leaking dropped by 40% compared with the prior quarter. The company also changed suppliers for the bottle caps at the start of the test, and internal audits show the new supplier's caps have tighter manufacturing tolerances. From this, managers conclude that the design change itself is not responsible for the drop in complaints; the new cap supplier is. Therefore, rolling out the new bottle design nationwide without switching cap suppliers would not reduce leaking complaints. Which one of the following would be most useful to know in evaluating the argument?
Answer: Were the new bottle designs in the test region used with the old cap supplier's caps for any portion of the test?
The managers claim the new cap supplier, not the bottle design, caused the 40% drop, because the new caps have tighter tolerances. But both changes happened at the same time, so the argument assumes the new bottles were always paired with the new caps. Knowing whether the new bottles were ever used with the OLD caps for part of the test is decisive: if leaking still dropped during that stretch, the design itself deserves credit, undermining the conclusion. This is the only option that separates the two overlapping variables. Asking about a price promotion targets sales volume, not leaking rates, so it doesn't help isolate what reduced complaints. Asking whether the region historically had more complaints gives background context but still can't tell you which of the two simultaneous changes drove the drop. Asking how long the supplier has operated or whether it holds certifications only reinforces that the caps are high quality—it never tests whether the bottle design also works. Asking about complaint-form wording raises a reporting-artifact possibility, but that would cast doubt on the 40% figure generally rather than distinguish the cap change from the design change, which is the argument's actual claim. Only isolating the design from the new caps lets you evaluate the managers' reasoning.
- A new study suggests that people who drink coffee regularly have a lower risk of developing a particular type of liver disease. Researchers found that coffee drinkers had a 30% lower incidence of the disease compared to non-drinkers. However, the study did not account for other lifestyle factors such as diet and exercise that might influence liver health. Therefore, it is concluded that drinking coffee protects against this liver disease.
Which one of the following would be most useful to know in evaluating the argument?
Answer: Do coffee drinkers generally have healthier diets than non-drinkers?
This evaluate-the-argument question asks what information would best help assess whether coffee actually protects against liver disease. The argument's central claim is that coffee drinking causes protection from liver disease, but this causal conclusion is undermined by the acknowledged gap: the study didn't control for other lifestyle factors. The correct answer (A) addresses this critical flaw by asking whether coffee drinkers have healthier diets generally—if they do, then diet rather than coffee could explain the lower disease rates. Answer choice (D) about measurement methodology might seem important, but it addresses data collection rather than the core causal inference problem. In evaluation questions, focus on what unknown information would most directly challenge or support the argument's logical leap from correlation to causation.
- A recent article claims that urban areas have higher rates of innovation due to the concentration of universities and tech companies. The article cites several examples of successful startups originating in cities. However, the article does not address the role of remote work and online collaboration in innovation. It concludes that urban concentration is essential for innovation.
Which one of the following would be most useful to know in evaluating the argument?
Answer: How does the presence of remote work options affect innovation in rural areas?
The argument claims urban concentration is essential for innovation, using city-based startup examples as evidence, but acknowledges it doesn't address remote work and online collaboration. The correct answer (B) probes exactly this gap—if remote work enables significant innovation in rural areas, this would directly challenge the 'urban concentration is essential' conclusion. Modern technology could allow rural innovators to collaborate effectively without physical proximity to universities and tech companies. Answer (A) about university-tech company collaboration frequency provides context about urban advantages but doesn't address whether remote technology might overcome geographic barriers. When arguments ignore technological changes that could undermine their premises, evaluation questions should focus on those technological factors.
- A town's public works department planted a new variety of grass in several parks. Over the summer, watering costs in those parks declined by 20% compared with the previous summer. But that same summer was unusually rainy, with total rainfall 30% above average. Because rainfall directly reduces the need for watering, the department concludes that the new grass variety did not meaningfully reduce watering costs; the extra rain did. Therefore, next summer—if rainfall returns to normal—watering costs will rise back near the previous level even if the town keeps the new grass. The answer to which one of the following questions would be most helpful in evaluating the argument?
Answer: Did parks that did not receive the new grass also experience a similar percentage decline in watering costs?
The department argues that the 30% above-average rainfall, not the new grass variety, explains the 20% reduction in watering costs because rain directly reduces watering needs. To evaluate this claim, we need a control group—parks that experienced the same unusual rainfall but kept the old grass. Answer B provides exactly this comparison by asking whether parks without the new grass also saw similar watering cost reductions, which would reveal if rainfall alone accounts for the savings or if the new grass contributed. Answer C about installation costs might be relevant for overall budget analysis but doesn't help determine what caused the reduction in watering costs specifically. When evaluating arguments about simultaneous environmental changes, the most useful information comes from control groups that experienced only one of the changes.
- A museum director argues that extending weekend hours will increase total ticket revenue. Last year, the museum ran a two-month pilot in which it stayed open two extra hours on Saturdays, and ticket sales during those added hours were strong. The director infers that visitors who came during the extra hours represent demand that previously went unmet. Therefore, if the museum extends weekend hours permanently, the director concludes that total weekend revenue will rise. This conclusion hinges on whether the additional visitors are mostly new visitors rather than people who would have visited anyway during regular hours.
Which one of the following would be most useful to know in evaluating the museum director's argument?
Answer: What proportion of visitors during the added hours would otherwise have visited during the museum's regular weekend hours?
In this evaluate-the-argument setup, the museum director's core claim is that permanently extending weekend hours will lift total revenue by tapping unmet demand. The validity turns on unresolved details about whether extra-hour visitors are incremental or simply shifted from regular times, as cannibalization would negate revenue gains. Choice C nails this by questioning what proportion of added-hour attendees would have come during standard hours anyway, directly testing the net increase. Something like D, a common trap asking about per-hour costs, provides operational background but doesn't affect if the visitors represent new revenue or redistribution. For evaluate questions, focus on the option that illuminates the argument's pivotal assumption at the decision point, such as distinguishing true growth from mere reallocation.
- A recent report suggests that remote work leads to higher employee engagement. The report is based on a survey of 1,200 remote workers, who reported higher satisfaction and engagement compared to office-based counterparts. However, the report does not address how job roles and responsibilities might differ between remote and office workers. It concludes that remote work is the key to employee engagement.
Which one of the following would be most useful to evaluate in assessing the argument?
Answer: Did the remote workers in the survey have different job roles than those in the office?
This argument concludes remote work is the key to employee engagement based on higher reported satisfaction among remote workers, but acknowledges not addressing how job roles might differ between remote and office workers. The correct answer (A) probes this critical gap—if remote workers tend to have more senior positions, creative roles, or greater autonomy compared to office workers in routine positions, then job characteristics rather than work location could explain the higher engagement. This challenges the location-based causation claim. Answer (B) about measurement methodology provides technical detail but doesn't address whether observed differences stem from work location versus job role characteristics. Evaluation questions often focus on whether compared groups are truly comparable or systematically different in ways that could explain observed outcomes.
- An environmental study finds that areas with more green spaces have lower crime rates. Researchers note that green spaces can improve community well-being and social cohesion. However, the study does not account for socioeconomic factors that may also influence crime rates. Based on this, the study concludes that increasing green spaces will reduce crime.
Which one of the following would be most useful to know in order to evaluate the argument?
Answer: Were the socioeconomic backgrounds of the areas with green spaces similar to those without?
This argument concludes that increasing green spaces will reduce crime, based on observed correlation between green spaces and lower crime rates, but acknowledges failing to account for socioeconomic factors. The correct answer (B) addresses this critical confounding variable—if areas with more green spaces also have higher income levels, better education, or more resources, then socioeconomic advantages rather than green spaces themselves could explain the lower crime rates. This challenges the causal inference from correlation. Answer (C) about green space usage frequency provides details about community engagement but doesn't address the fundamental question of whether green spaces or underlying socioeconomic differences drive the crime correlation. Evaluation questions often hinge on distinguishing correlation from causation by examining potential confounding variables.
- A city council member argues that the downtown bus network should be expanded. Ridership on the two existing downtown lines increased by 18% after the city added sheltered stops and real-time arrival displays. The member claims those amenities made buses more convenient, which attracted new riders. If expanding the network includes the same amenities, the member concludes that overall downtown ridership will increase enough to reduce car traffic noticeably. The conclusion depends largely on whether the new routes would draw additional riders rather than merely shifting current riders to different lines.
Which one of the following would be most useful to know in order to evaluate the argument?
Answer: To what extent would riders on the existing lines switch to the new routes rather than taking additional bus trips overall?
As an experienced LSAT tutor, let's dissect this evaluate-the-argument question where the council member's central claim is that expanding the bus network with amenities will boost overall ridership enough to cut car traffic. This hinges on unknown information about whether the new routes will attract genuinely new trips or just cannibalize existing ones, as mere shifting wouldn't increase totals. Choice B directly probes this hinge by asking to what extent current riders would switch versus taking more trips, revealing if the expansion adds net ridership. A tempting distractor like A, which asks about installation costs, offers financial background but doesn't impact whether ridership truly grows or just relocates. In evaluate questions, always seek the variant that targets the argument's decision point—here, the assumption that amenities drive additive, not substitutive, usage—to determine if the conclusion stands or falls.
- A recent survey indicates that individuals who meditate regularly report higher levels of life satisfaction. The survey included responses from 1,000 participants, half of whom meditate daily. Researchers suggest that meditation could be a key factor in improving life satisfaction. However, the survey did not explore other mental health practices the participants might engage in.
Which one of the following would be most useful to know in evaluating the researchers' hypothesis?
Answer: Do the participants who meditate also engage in other stress-reducing activities?
This argument claims meditation causes higher life satisfaction, but the acknowledged research gap is that other mental health practices weren't explored. The correct answer (A) directly addresses this confounding variable concern—if meditators also engage in therapy, exercise, journaling, or other stress-reduction activities, then these alternative practices could explain the higher satisfaction levels rather than meditation alone. Answer (D) about demographic differences might reveal correlation patterns but doesn't address the specific causal mechanism gap identified in the stimulus. When evaluating arguments with acknowledged confounding variables, look for answer choices that probe exactly those unexplored factors that could provide alternative explanations for the observed correlation.
- A commuter rail line introduced a mobile ticketing app. In the following quarter, the number of onboard fare disputes dropped by 35%. But during that same quarter, the rail line also increased the number of ticket inspectors assigned to peak-hour trains. Since more inspectors can deter fare evasion and reduce disputes regardless of ticketing method, the transit authority concludes that the app did not significantly reduce disputes; increased inspection did. Therefore, if the authority keeps the app but returns inspector staffing to its previous level, fare disputes will rise back near their earlier rate. Which one of the following would be most useful to know in evaluating the argument?
Answer: On trains where inspector staffing did not increase, did fare disputes still decline after the app was introduced?
The transit authority argues that increased inspector staffing, not the mobile app, caused the 35% drop in fare disputes because more inspectors deter fare evasion regardless of ticketing method. To evaluate this reasoning, we need to know whether the app reduces disputes even without increased inspection—essentially requiring a control group. Answer C provides this perfectly by asking about trains where inspector staffing didn't increase, which would isolate the app's independent effect on dispute reduction. Answer B about app usage percentage provides useful context but doesn't help separate the app's impact from increased inspection's impact on dispute rates. In evaluate questions involving policy changes with multiple simultaneous interventions, the most useful information comes from situations where only one intervention was implemented.
- A wildlife conservation group reports that the population of a rare bird species has increased after a ban on hunting was implemented. The report is based on observations over a two-year period, noting a 25% population increase. However, the report does not consider other environmental changes that might have contributed to this growth. The group concludes that the hunting ban is the reason for the population increase.
Which one of the following would be most useful to evaluate in assessing the argument?
Answer: Were there significant changes in the birds' natural habitat during the study period?
The conservation group concludes the hunting ban caused bird population increase, observing 25% growth over two years, but acknowledges not considering other environmental changes during this period. The correct answer (A) addresses this critical alternative explanation gap—if the birds' natural habitat improved through restoration projects, climate changes, reduced pollution, or increased food sources, these factors rather than reduced hunting could explain population growth. Answer (E) about other conservation measures is tempting but focuses on additional human interventions rather than broader environmental changes that could independently boost population. When arguments attribute causation to a single intervention while acknowledging unexplored environmental factors, evaluation questions should probe those broader environmental possibilities that could provide alternative explanations.
- A company's HR manager argues that switching to a four-day workweek will increase productivity. In a trial at one department, employees worked four longer days and reported higher morale, and the department completed slightly more projects than usual. The manager infers that higher morale leads to better focus and fewer wasted hours, which boosts output. Thus, the manager concludes that adopting a four-day workweek across the company will increase productivity overall. This conclusion depends chiefly on whether the trial department's increased output resulted from the schedule change rather than from an unusually light workload or other temporary factor.
Which one of the following would be most useful to know in evaluating the HR manager's argument?
Answer: Were the projects completed during the trial comparable in difficulty and scope to the department's typical projects?
This evaluate-the-argument question centers on the HR manager's claim that a four-day week will boost company-wide productivity, extrapolating from a trial's output rise. The validity hangs on whether that rise came from the schedule or anomalies like easier projects. Choice B directly interrogates this by asking if trial projects matched typical difficulty, isolating the schedule's role. Something tempting like A, about employee numbers, provides scale background but doesn't affect causation. In evaluate scenarios, select the variant that scrutinizes the evidence's representativeness at the decision point, differentiating real drivers from coincidental factors.
- A school principal argues that replacing printed textbooks with tablets will improve student performance. In a nearby district, after tablets were introduced, average science scores rose modestly the next semester. The principal reasons that tablets make it easier for students to access interactive practice and immediate feedback, which should strengthen understanding. Thus, the principal concludes that adopting tablets at this school will raise science scores. The argument depends heavily on whether the score increase in the nearby district was actually caused by the tablets rather than by some other change that occurred at the same time.
Which one of the following would be most useful to know in evaluating the argument?
Answer: Did the nearby district introduce any other major changes in its science curriculum or teaching staff at the same time as the tablets?
Here in this evaluate-the-argument question, the principal's main assertion is that tablets will raise science scores by enabling better practice and feedback. This depends critically on whether the nearby district's score bump stemmed from tablets or confounding factors like curriculum tweaks. Choice B targets this exact hinge by asking if other major changes coincided with the tablets, helping isolate causation. A distractor like A, inquiring about out-of-class tablet use, adds usage context but doesn't challenge if tablets alone drove the improvement. In these questions, prioritize the variant that probes the causal link at the argument's decision point, separating genuine effects from alternative explanations.
- A tech company notes that after it began allowing employees to work remotely two days per week, reported software defects per release fell by 15%. In that same timeframe, the company also instituted a new code-review checklist that requires reviewers to verify specific security and performance items. Since structured checklists often reduce errors, management concludes that remote work did not significantly improve code quality; the checklist did. Therefore, if the company ends remote work but keeps the checklist, defects per release will remain low. Which one of the following would be most useful to know in evaluating the argument?
Answer: Did teams that adopted the checklist earlier, before remote work began, show a similar reduction in defects?
Management attributes the 15% reduction in software defects entirely to the new code-review checklist, dismissing any contribution from remote work. The key to evaluating this claim is finding data that separates the checklist's effect from remote work's effect—ideally from a time when only one change was in place. Answer C perfectly provides this by asking about teams that adopted the checklist before remote work began, which would show whether the checklist alone produces similar defect reductions. Answer D about employee satisfaction with remote work might correlate with code quality, but it doesn't directly test whether remote work or the checklist caused the improvement. In arguments that dismiss one simultaneous change in favor of another, look for historical or comparison data that isolates each factor's individual impact.
- A tech company reports that its new software tool has increased employee productivity by 20%. The report is based on data collected over a three-month period from a sample of 500 employees who used the tool. However, the company did not compare productivity changes to a control group not using the tool. The company claims the tool is highly effective.
Which one of the following would be most useful to know in evaluating the company's claim about the software tool?
Answer: Was there a control group of employees who did not use the tool for comparison?
The argument claims the software tool increased productivity by 20%, but explicitly notes the lack of a control group for comparison. This creates a fundamental experimental design flaw: without knowing how productivity changed among employees not using the tool, we cannot isolate the tool's effect from other factors like seasonal variations, company-wide initiatives, or general motivation changes. Answer (B) directly addresses this missing control group issue—the most critical information for evaluating causation. Answer (A) about measurement methodology provides technical detail but doesn't resolve whether the observed changes were specifically caused by the tool rather than external factors. In evaluation questions involving claimed causal effects, the presence or absence of proper control groups is typically the decisive validity factor.
- A librarian argues that eliminating late fees will increase overall library use. Another city's library removed late fees and then saw a rise in the number of active cardholders. The librarian reasons that late fees discourage patrons who fear accumulating charges, so removing fees makes people more willing to borrow. Therefore, the librarian concludes that removing late fees here will substantially increase circulation. The argument's force depends mainly on whether patrons in this community are currently avoiding borrowing because of late-fee concerns rather than for unrelated reasons such as limited book selection.
Which one of the following would be most useful to know in evaluating the librarian's argument?
Answer: Do patrons in this community report avoiding borrowing items primarily because they worry about incurring late fees?
Evaluating this argument, the librarian's key claim is that ditching late fees will spike circulation by encouraging more borrowing. This depends on whether fees are the main deterrent or if other issues like selection limit use. Choice B captures this hinge by asking if patrons avoid borrowing due to fee worries, testing the causal mechanism. A distractor like A, on current fee revenue, adds fiscal context but doesn't determine if removal addresses the true barrier. Approach evaluate questions by identifying the option that challenges the motivational assumption at the decision point, revealing if the proposed fix targets the actual problem.
- At a city library, administrators note that after they extended weekend hours last year, total weekend visits increased by 18%. They also observe that during the same period, the number of community events hosted at the library on weekends rose from 2 per month to 6 per month. Since events reliably draw large crowds, the administrators infer that the extended hours did not meaningfully affect weekend attendance; rather, the added events explain the increase. Therefore, if the library returns to its previous weekend hours but keeps the higher number of events, weekend visits will remain about the same as they are now. The answer to which one of the following questions would be most helpful in evaluating the argument?
Answer: What proportion of weekend visitors attended the library specifically during the newly added hours?
The administrators argue that extended hours didn't meaningfully affect weekend attendance because community events increased from 2 to 6 per month during the same period, and these events reliably draw large crowds. To evaluate this argument, we need to know whether the 18% increase in visits occurred specifically during the newly added hours or during the original hours when events might have been scheduled. Answer B asks exactly this—what proportion of weekend visitors came during the newly added hours—which would reveal whether extended hours contributed independently to the increase. Answer A about other attractions is tempting because it might explain general traffic patterns, but it doesn't help us separate the impact of extended hours from the impact of events at this specific library. When evaluating arguments that attribute an effect to one cause rather than another, focus on information that would help isolate each cause's individual contribution.
