Logical reasoning PrepTest 153 · Section 2 · Question 20

Incorrect. Correctly identifies that the role statement is a premise, but misidentifies the conclusion.

Incorrect. This statement isn't presented as evidence against anything. It's evidence for the argument's main point.

Incorrect. The statement in question is not a conclusion. It doesn't receive support from any premises.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Argument Structure

Stimulus Summary:
Some literary theorists think literature can't embody aesthetic values, because literary works are mostly works of ideology. But those same theorists compare literary works and find some to be more interesting or successful than others. So, they're contradicting themselves.

Answer Anticipation:
First of all, try to ignore the flowery language here and the topic that's only really of interest to literature meta-critics. That's all there to throw you off when the logic itself is relatively simple. The critics make one claim, but their behavior supports a different conclusion. So, since their behavior is supporting the conclusion, it's a premise. As long as you've identified the conclusion correctly (final sentence) you'll get this right.

Answer Explanation:
Yes, precisely. It's a premise that supports the main conclusion. Simple, logically speaking.

Key Takeaway:
Half the challenge of the LSAT is just in understanding fairly badly written and flawed arguments well enough to answer questions about them. Remember, it's not you. It's them. The stimulus is often genuinely confusing, and that's on purpose. If you read strategically with your attention on logic rather than subject matter, you'll find that the underlying mechanisms of the argument are simpler than the vocabulary.

Incorrect. This claim wasn't presented as evidence against anything. It's a premise supporting a conclusion.