PrepTest 157

[lcid:3726] Prep Test 157 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S3 Logical reasoning

Question prompt

Philosopher: Philosophers usually treat Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: C

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

Argument or Facts

Argument

Valid or Flawed

Flawed

Strategy Overview

Identify the conclusion Identify the premise Determine the role played by the statement from the question stem.
For example...
Premise Main conclusion Premise/conclusion
Find the answer choice that correctly expresses the role

Answer Anticipation

On an Argument Structure question, an experienced test taker will first thoroughly deconstruct and understand the entire argument in the passage. Even though our job is to understand the role of the statement in the question stem, there are several benefits to understanding the whole argument. First, trying to figure out the role of the statement-in-question too early and without considering the entire argument can sometimes bias us and lead to an incorrect determination. Second, many answer choices will require us to know the roles of multiple propositions. (For instance, if the statement-in-question is a premise/conclusion, we'll probably also need to know which premise supports the premise/conclusion and which conclusion the premise/conclusion supports.) So, let's break down the philosopher's entire argument, starting with the main conclusion. The last sentence, which uses the structural word "Thus," is certainly a conclusion. That claim is supported by the previous sentence. Why is it true that we don't have words to distinguish different types of joy? Because the words we use for emotions only refer to general feelings like joy itself. That makes sense. But are we sure it's the main conclusion? After all, it's an example, which is almost always a premise. And the philosopher's second sentence expresses a disagreement with most philosophers. Such disagreements are often the argument's main conclusion. If we need to, we can test which potential conclusion is the main conclusion with the Why? Test. We'll set up the argument both ways (note that we're using simplified SVO-versions of these sentences): "Why is it true that emotion only seems nonrational because language can't capture some emotions? Because, for example, we don't have words that distinguish different types of joy." "Why is it true that, for example, we don't have words that distinguish different types of joy? Because emotion only seems nonrational because language can't capture some emotions." Almost all test-takers would agree that the first argument makes much more sense. We lack different words to describe different types of joy, which shows that language can't capture some emotions. Framing the argument the other way doesn't seem like a rational or cogent paragraph. So, with that analysis, we can confirm that the second sentence is the main conclusion. The third is a premise. And the fourth is a premise/conclusion. (The first is just background information.) Finally, we can turn our attention back to the question stem and figure out the role played by the statement in question. The claim in question is the last sentence. As discussed above, that claim is a premise/conclusion. It is supported by the third sentence, and it supports the second.

Answer choices

  1. A
    It is an example Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    There's a lot of referential language in this answer choice, so let's work through each referent to see if it matches the argument. The last sentence is definitely an "example," but whether it's an example of a phenomenon is up for debate. Moreover, if we can indeed call "the words we use for emotions only refer to general feelings like excitement, calm, and joy" a "phenomenon," we can't say the argument attempts to explain that phenomenon. The argument doesn't explain why we lack words for some emotions. Instead, the argument explains that emotions only seem nonrational because we lack words for some emotions. Therefore, this answer choice subtly but significantly mischaracterizes the philosopher's argument.

  2. B
    It is the main Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    Nope. The last sentence is a premise/conclusion that supports the argument's main conclusion. It is not the main conclusion.

  3. C
    It is a specific Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C matches the stem

    There's a lot of referential language in this answer choice, so let's work through each referent to see if it matches the argument. The last sentence is definitely a "specific instance illustrating a general claim." The last sentence is an "example," the definition of which is a "specific instance illustrating a general claim."

    Moreover, the last sentence definitely illustrates a "general claim" — the claim that the words we use for emotions only refer to general feelings like excitement, calm, and joy. The last sentence shows one instance in which that's true. We only have one word for "joy," but it doesn't distinguish between long-term joy, short-term joy, ecstatic joy, or any other kind of joy.

    Finally, the last sentence supports the main conclusion. We anticipated that it's a premise/conclusion that supports the conclusion that emotions only seem nonrational because language can't capture some emotions. And it's accurate to say this support is "indirect" since the conclusion doesn't provide evidence showing that emotions are, in fact, rational. It only explains why emotions may not be as nonrational as some people think.

    So, this answer choice correctly identifies that the last sentence supports the main conclusion and doesn't mischaracterize any part of the philosopher's argument. It is, therefore, correct.

  4. D
    It is a concession Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    Nope. As we anticipated, the last sentence supports the philosopher's argument. Therefore, it can't support the view held by most philosophers that the argument seeks to refute. After all, the claim that we lack words to distinguish different types of joy doesn't support the claim that emotions are not rational.

  5. E
    It is the explanation Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    First of all, if something is the "explanation" of a phenomenon "the argument seeks to explain," that "explanation" would appear in the argument's main conclusion. So, this answer choice is just a long-winded way of saying, "It is the argument's main conclusion." We know the last sentence isn't the main conclusion — it's a premise/conclusion — so that gives us enough reason to cross off (E).

    If you need more reasons to feel confident eliminating (E), we'll need to work through this answer choice's referential language. The last sentence isn't really an "explanation." Explanations are typically general claims. The last sentence is explicitly framed as a specific example.

    Even if we ignore that issue, it's unclear what the word "phenomenon" would refer to in this argument. The claim that "the words we use for emotions only refer to general feelings like excitement, calm, and joy"? In that case, the last sentence doesn't explain why that is the case. It just gives an example of a word that only refers to a generalized feeling. Does phenomenon instead refer to the claim that "emotions only seem nonrational"? In that case, the last sentence still doesn't explain why that's the case. Maybe the third sentence does, but not the last sentence.

    So, no matter how we slice it, this answer choice mischaracterizes the philosopher's argument.

Discussion

No threads yet—be the first to ask a question or share an approach.

View all discussions Start a discussion