Logical reasoning PrepTest 149 · Section 4 · Question 3

Incorrect. This is a premise that supports the conclusion that he's not a true restaurant clinic.

Incorrect. This is a fact with no support—in other words, a premise. It backs up his lack of food expertise.

Incorrect. While this is an opinion, it has no support in the stimulus and is immediately pivoted away from, so it's not the main point.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Main Point

Stimulus Summary:
RO: This reporter has no food expertise and worked in politics. You wouldn't call someone with no theater experience a drama critic, so this reporter isn't a true restaurant critic.

Answer Anticipation:
There are a few hints that "[H]e is not a true restaurant critic," is the conclusion of this argument. First, it's an opinion, whereas a lot of the other statements are facts (what he's acknowledged, that's he was a political reporter, that he panned the restaurant). The analogy to a drama critic also supports that statement, making it a conclusion. The reporter being a good writer is also an opinion, but there's no support for it and the Restaurant Owner immediately pivots away from it to the statement about him not being a true restaurant critic. All of these factors point to that statement being the main point.

Answer Explanation:
This answer reflects the opinion of the Restaurant Owner, backed up by his lack of expertise in the food sciences and the analogy to the drama critic.

Key Takeaway:
Structural keywords are a primary tool to help you understand argument structure, but they're not the only tool. As we saw here, there were several pieces of evidence pointing to the main point. As you study the LSAT, you should start to develop a better sense for all of these so that you can quickly make sense of the structure of an argument, freeing up more time to analyze the logic in questions where that's appropriate, or taking up less time on questions just about structure, such as this one.

Incorrect. This is an analogy meant to highlight a similar situation that would lead to the same conclusion that the author draws, thus serving as support.