Logical reasoning PrepTest 142 · Section 4 · Question 2

Incorrect. This is background that sets up the phenomenon that the economist tries to explain.

Incorrect. This is a consequence of the background, but still background itself—it's still a part of the phenomenon that needs explaining.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Valid

Question Type:
Main Point

Stimulus Summary:
One economist argues the improved standards of living from the Industrial Revolution was because of changed values, but arguments need to be backed up by facts, so we shouldn't accept that theory until it's backed up by evidence.

Answer Anticipation:
For early Main Point questions, don't overcomplicate things! This argument has a very straightforward structure—background, opposing point, pivot ("but") to a premise, and reach a conclusion ("so"). While those last two pieces of the argument are frequently reversed, the argument has a clear conclusion word right before the final clause—"so."

With that determined, we should look for an answer that repeats that last clause—the economist's explanation shouldn't be accepted until backed up by evidence.

Answer Explanation:
This answer barely even changes the language up, replacing "this" with "the economist's" but otherwise just rewriting what came after the "so," so this is the right answer.

Key Takeaway:
The Historian in this argument concludes that the Economist has not yet proven his point. That's a very different conclusion from the Economist being wrong. The difference between criticizing a viewpoint for being wrong and for not proving its conclusion is an important one on the LSAT, so be sure to distinguish between them when summarizing an argument. As we saw here, 2 wrong answers could trap someone who didn't note the difference.

Incorrect. This answer is a step beyond what the Historian concludes. She argues that we shouldn't yet accept the Economist's argument. However, she doesn't reach the conclusion that the Economist is wrong—just that he hasn't proven his point yet. If the evidence backs up her claim, the Historian's comments suggest she'd be open to accepting it.

Incorrect. This answer is a statement that would need to be true in order to undermine the Economist's argument. Since the Historian doesn't establish she believes he's wrong, this is a step too far.