LSAT 126 – Section 4 – Question 19
LSAT 126 - Section 4 - Question 19
October 2008You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.
Target time: 1:41
This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds
| Question QuickView |
Type | Tags | Answer Choices |
Curve | Question Difficulty |
Psg/Game/S Difficulty |
Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PT126 S4 Q19 |
+LR
+Exp
| Sufficient assumption +SA Conditional Reasoning +CondR Link Assumption +LinkA | A
7%
159
B
6%
157
C
60%
165
D
2%
156
E
26%
159
|
151 159 168 |
+Harder | 147.084 +SubsectionMedium |
Sufficient Assumption question, pretty standard, cookie cutter question that we should be able to anticipate the answer choice.
But, it's difficult because of the embedded argument within an argument, heavy use of referential phrasing, and grammar parsing.
Author's argument begins with "however". The text before "however" is just context/other people's argument that will later serve as the referent for a referential phrase used in the conclusion.
"one must mine the full imp... to make intell prog"
Think about what's necessary and what's sufficient in this relationship. Does mining the full imp guarantee that we'll make intell prog? No. It's the other way around.
"for this, thinkers need intell discipline"
What does "this" refer to?
If you answer both of the above questions correctly, you'll end up with the proper translation of the premise below:
intell prog --> mine full imp --> intell discipline
The conclusion says "this argument for free thought fails". This takes a bit of interpreting. Look at all the text before "however". That's where we get the argument for "free thought". What's the conclusion? Focus on the indicator "because". The conclusion is "free thought is a precondition for intell prog". Now, what's the relationship here? A precondition. Something we must have. A necessary condition.
intell prog --> free thought
That's just the contextual conclusion though. Our author is arguing that that's wrong.
NOT (intell prog --> free thought)
Fully translated, it looks like this:
intell prog --> mine full imp --> intell discipline
_______________
NOT (intell prog --> free thought)
So, how do we make this argument valid? We can make intell discipline imply NO free thought. (C) gives us the contrapositive.
free thought --> NO intell discipline.
Take PrepTest
Review Results
LSAT PrepTest 126 Explanations
Section 1 - Logical Reasoning
- Question 01
- Question 02
- Question 03
- Question 04
- Question 05
- Question 06
- Question 07
- Question 08
- Question 09
- Question 10
- Question 11
- Question 12
- Question 13
- Question 14
- Question 15
- Question 16
- Question 17
- Question 18
- Question 19
- Question 20
- Question 21
- Question 22
- Question 23
- Question 24
- Question 25
Section 2 - Reading Comprehension
- Passage 1 – Passage
- Passage 1 – Questions
- Passage 2 – Passage
- Passage 2 – Questions
- Passage 3 – Passage
- Passage 3 – Questions
- Passage 4 – Passage
- Passage 4 – Questions
Section 3 - Logical Reasoning
- Question 01
- Question 02
- Question 03
- Question 04
- Question 05
- Question 06
- Question 07
- Question 08
- Question 09
- Question 10
- Question 11
- Question 12
- Question 13
- Question 14
- Question 15
- Question 16
- Question 17
- Question 18
- Question 19
- Question 20
- Question 21
- Question 22
- Question 23
- Question 24
- Question 25
Section 4 - Logical Reasoning
- Question 01
- Question 02
- Question 03
- Question 04
- Question 05
- Question 06
- Question 07
- Question 08
- Question 09
- Question 10
- Question 11
- Question 12
- Question 13
- Question 14
- Question 15
- Question 16
- Question 17
- Question 18
- Question 19
- Question 20
- Question 21
- Question 22
- Question 23
- Question 24
- Question 25
- Question 26
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment. You can get a free account here.