Logical Reasoning · Weaken (EXCEPT)

PrepTest 152 · Section 2 · Question 5

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

Step 1 · Pre-Question Guidance · read this first

Question type

Weaken EXCEPT

The one idea it tests

A guess that a change happened because a problem stopped is weakened by other causes or by reasons the change could not have happened; the odd one out fits the guess.

The basic logic

The conclusion infers that a particular step was taken because the result it is known for showed up. Four choices weaken that: another cause, or the step being impossible. The answer is the one choice that does not hurt, often one that fits the step's pattern of effects.

Tiny words that decide it

“EXCEPT”
“since”
“concluded”

Playground logic

The vase stopped falling, so Marcus decides Tommy must have put orange peels around it (top bun). Four answers give other reasons or show peels were impossible. The odd one out matches what peels would do, so it does not pop Marcus's burger.

Step 2 · The kid story

The Mystery of the Unfallen Vase

For weeks, Mr. Whiskers kept knocking Grandpa's vase off the shelf. Tommy told Marcus, 'I heard cats hate the smell of orange peels.' Two weeks later, Tommy reported: 'The vase has not fallen once since we talked!' Marcus slapped the table. 'Then you put orange peels around it. Case closed.' Lulu raised her pencil. 'Not so fast. Maybe Grandpa moved the vase to a higher shelf.' Owen added, 'Or maybe Mr. Whiskers spent two weeks at the vet.' Tommy admitted, 'Also, I have never been allowed to touch oranges. Allergies.' Priya smiled. 'Those all hurt Marcus. But here is one that does not: the cat also stopped walking on the shelf next to the vase, but still walks on the far bookcase. That sounds like a smell near the vase, which fits Marcus.'

Step 3 · Try the model question

Tommy heard that orange peels keep cats away. Two weeks later, Tommy said Mr. Whiskers had not knocked over the vase since then. Marcus concluded that Tommy had put orange peels near the vase.

All of these would make Marcus's conclusion less believable EXCEPT:

Step 4 · The courtroom tale

The Case of the Quiet Rooster

Farmer Lyle's rooster used to crow at 4 a.m. every day. Neighbor Edna had told Lyle that a dark blanket over a coop quiets roosters. A month later, the crowing stopped. Lawyer Joe Penn declared, 'Your Honor, clearly Lyle covered the coop.' Mr. Whitfield stood. 'Or he sold the rooster. Or the blanket store was closed all month. Or the rooster simply lost his voice.' Mr. Penn shot back, 'And yet the hens in that same coop also went quiet in the morning, while the chickens in the barn still squawk.' The judge smiled. 'Mr. Whitfield, your points weaken the claim. Mr. Penn's point fits it nicely, since a covered coop would hush only the birds inside.'

Step 5 · Work the real question

Open PrepTest 152, Section 2, Question 5 in your official copy from LSAC (for example in LawHub) and read it there.

Your answer

How to apply it

Mark the conclusion: from a good result, the arguer infers a specific step was taken. In an EXCEPT question, four choices weaken, so look for alternative causes and reasons the step could not have happened, and cross those off. The surviving choice is either neutral or fits the step's expected pattern of effects. Ask of each: does this make the inferred step less likely? Only one does not.