PrepTest 126

[lcid:3602] Prep Test 126 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S3 Logical reasoning

Question prompt

It is popularly believed Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: D

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Argument or Facts

Argument

Valid or Flawed

Flawed

Question Type

Strengthen with Necessary Premise Questions

Stimulus Summary

Popular belief: Poems mean whatever the reader thinks

Answer Anticipation

While Strengthen with Necessary Premise questions are less likely to have conditional logic in them than Sufficient Premise questions, they do show up on the exam, and the process of dealing with them is the same as with all conditional logic-based questions. Diagram things out, figure out where the gap is, and find an answer that addresses that gap.
Here, our first step should be to rephrase the conclusion’s necessary condition to state what it actually means. The popular belief is that poems mean whatever the reader thinks, so saying that’s false is the same as saying that poems don’t mean whatever the reader thinks they mean. With that rephrased, the argument is:
Premise - ~Possible to agree on interpretation → ~Discuss aesthetic value
Conclusion - Objective evaluation possible → ~Poems mean whatever reader thinks
Now we want to see what statements from the premises and conclusion overlap, and which form the assumption. Here, the premise and conclusion both deal with interpretations of the poems by readers. Let’s take the contrapositive of the premise to get those related terms in the same position:
Premise - Discuss aesthetic value → Possible to agree on interpretation
Now, are those two statements about interpretation related enough for us to say there’s a relationship? Well, if it’s possible to agree on a correct interpretation, then the poems can’t just mean anything that the reader believes it means. So there is an implied link between those terms, and there’s not a gap there.
So based on the premise, we can get to the necessary condition of the conclusion if it’s possible to discuss the aesthetic value of a poem. However, the conclusion reaches that necessary condition if objective evaluation of a poem is possible. Since there’s a gap there, the correct answer will bridge it:
Objective evaluation possible → Discuss aesthetic value

Answer choices

  1. A
    Only if they find Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited
    The stimulus talks about discussing the aesthetic value of a poem, not determining whether it has aesthetic value.
  2. B
    If two readers agree Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    This answer puts the sufficient condition of the conclusion as a necessary condition, which is a reversal.
  3. C
    Discussion of a poem Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    The stimulus is about discussing the aesthetic value of a poem, not any discussion of the poem. Since this answer is broader than the stimulus, it’s incorrect. While being unable to discuss a poem does mean you can’t discuss its aesthetic value, it could be true that you couldn’t discuss the aesthetic value of a poem even though you can discuss the poem itself.
  4. D
    A given poem can Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D matches the stem
    Objective evaluation possible → Discuss aesthetic value. This answer bridges the gap in the argument. If objective evaluation is possible even if aesthetic value couldn’t be discussed, then that term from the conclusion can’t be connected to the premises, and the argument falls apart.
  5. E
    Aesthetic evaluation of literature Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited
    First, the stimulus sets the bar at “at least two readers,” not “more than two readers” as this answer brings up. Second, the stimulus doesn’t use comparative language (“best accomplished”), instead dealing with non-comparative conditionals.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion