Reading Comprehension · Inference (extension)

PrepTest 126 · Section 2 · Question 2

Phase 1 (your first ~400 questions): read the guidance, then answer. No clock.

Step 1 · Pre-Question Guidance · read this first

Question type

Inference (extension: what else the author would write)

The one idea it tests

An extra sentence belongs in the same work only if it fits both the author's reasoning and the author's attitude.

The basic logic

Pin down the author's stance: the remedy is weak, especially against quiet, unprovable transfer. A sentence that fits this author accepts that limit and works around it. A sentence that praises the remedy, demands new legal tools, or overstates a minor point does not fit.

Tiny words that decide it

“might”
“best”
“given”

Playground logic

The kid passage's author thinks the seed rule cannot stop seeds hiding in fur. So a sensible next sentence would suggest a practical step that does not rely on the rule at all.

Step 2 · The kid passage

This question belongs to Passage 1 (Questions 1–6). Read its kid passage and structure guide first: Biscuit and the Seed Rule →

Step 3 · Try the model question

Which sentence would most likely appear later in the same piece about Biscuit?

Step 5 · Work the real question

Open PrepTest 126, Section 2, Question 2 in your official copy from LSAC (for example in LawHub) and read it there.

Your answer

How to apply it

Open Question 2 in your official copy and answer it first.

Write down the author's verdict and tone in a few words before reading choices. For each choice, ask: would this author nod or frown? Eliminate choices that praise the remedy the author doubts, that call for a new legal tool, or that blow a side point up to an extreme. The survivor works within the limits the author describes.