Logic Breakdown

Passage Summary: Because a neutral expert says the tracks are fine, we should doubt a journalist who says they are broken.

Conclusion: We should be skeptical of the reporter's claim that the train tracks are in bad shape.

Reasoning: An unbiased railway inspector recently performed a thorough check and testified that the tracks are actually in good condition.

Analysis: The structure of this argument relies on the testimony of a neutral, qualified authority to discredit a conflicting claim from a different source. To parallel this, look for an argument that follows the pattern: 'Source A says X, Source A is reliable/unbiased, therefore Source B's claim of Not-X is probably wrong.' The logic hinges on the idea that an expert's lack of bias makes their observation more credible than a competing report. Focus on the transition from an expert's 'good' report to the dismissal of a 'bad' report.

Passage Stimulus

Passage Redacted

Unlock Full Passage

5.

The reasoning in the argument above is most similar to the reasoning in which one of the following arguments?

Correct Answer
B
B mirrors the structure: an unbiased, qualified examiner (Gardner) closely inspected the evidence and concludes the bones aren’t dinosaur bones; therefore we should be skeptical of someone else’s contrary claim (Penwick’s). It’s the same credibility-based move against a competing claim.
Upgrade Your Prep

Ready to go beyond free explanations?

LSAT Perfection is the #1 modern LSAT prep platform, trusted by thousands of students for comprehensive test strategies, advanced drilling, and full analytics on every PrepTest.

Detailed explanations for 59 PrepTests
Advanced drillset builder
Personalized analytics
Built-in Wrong Answer Journal
Explore Perfection Plus for full LSAT prep