Since the stem explicitly asks us to identify a “main conclusion,” we don’t have to analyze the strength or weakness of the argument. Simply analyze the argument to identify the conclusion. Remembering our theory and approach lessons, we should be thinking about terms like phenomenon, premise, conclusion, and the ways that these all logically relate to one another in service of the author’s point. What information offers support? What is being supported? Be especially on the lookout for indicators that will help you tell the premises and the conclusion apart.

After we’ve read the stem and identified the question type, we can go through the stimulus step-by-step. To start off, let’s limit our attention to the first three sentences.

The passage begins with a phenomenon: coral-reef fish are brilliantly colored. Scientists wonder why. We can see that this represents the thing to be explained.

Are there any hypotheses that attempt such an explanation? The stimulus provides one. Coral reefs are colorful, and, therefore, camouflage the colorful fish. This second sentence gives us one answer to the question about which scientists wonder. It’s a candidate for our main conclusion. Keep it in mind as we move on.

In the third sentence, we’re told that—after all—many animal species use camouflage to avoid predators. Be wary of the way that the question writers have played with sentence structure here. The interjected clause “after all” can be moved to the beginning. Once we've done so, we see that the phrase “after all” works here as a premise indicator. That means the third sentence gives us evidence in support of the scientists’ camouflage hypothesis.

Here it looks like we’ve accounted for all the parts of an argument. The passage begins with a phenomenon: coral-reef fish are colorful. Then, there’s a conclusion-hypothesis attempting to explain that phenomenon: colorful fish are camouflaged by reefs. We’ve also identified a premise in support of that conclusion: the fact that many animal species use camouflage supports the idea that the same is happening here.

Now seems like a good time to start looking at our answer choices. Let’s consider Answer Choice (B). first:

This is a tempting answer. (B) almost perfectly paraphrases the third sentence. Remember that earlier we identified this sentence as a premise. It offers evidence for the scientists’ hypothesis. However, the stem isn’t asking us for a premise of any kind—we’re looking for the conclusion. (B) can be eliminated.

Take a moment to note that (B) is a trap answer. It provides an accurate summary, but of the wrong thing. Moving forward, it’s important to understand why wrong answers are wrong—and how the test writers will try to lure you into misidentifying an argument’s parts. Remember that we’re asked for the main point here. Restatements of premises or evidence will always be a wrong answer for this question type.

Answer Choice (A) The hypothesis given here is a very good paraphrase of what we’ve already identified as a conclusion. You might have a few quibbles over word choice. Do the words “fish living near coral reefs” mean the same thing as “fish living around coral reefs?” For our purposes, the answer is yes, and success on the LSAT will often depend on making these kinds of reasonable assumptions. Look back again at the question stem. It says “most accurately” and that provides some leeway. Of our options, (A)most accurately restates the hypothesis that coral-reef fish exhibit bright colors because they are camouflaged by coral reefs.

So (A) is the correct answer, right?

Well, yes, had the stimulus ended there. But, it doesn’t so let’s read the rest of it to find out.

With our fourth sentence, the picture gets a little more complicated. “However” is often a context indicator and here it signals a transition. We’ve seen how the first part of the passage reproduces a recognizable argumentative form. However, now we learn it’s an argument with which the author disagrees. That relegates everything we’ve read so far to “context” to “setup” for the author’s argument. The author believes that the the previous suggestion, the scientists’ camouflage hypothesis is mistaken. In fact, brilliantly-colored coral-reef fish are not camouflaged by their coral environment. This is what the author means to convince us of. Therefore, we can identify it as the argument’s main conclusion.

Supporting this conclusion is the fact that many coral reefs are not brilliantly colored at all. In fact, without the fish, they’d be monochromatic and dull. These final sentences provide reasons we should believe the author’s conclusion. They are meant to give evidence supportive of what we’ve already seen to be the main point: the suggestion that coral offers camouflage to brilliantly-colored coral-reef fish is false.

Now that we’ve seen the passage in full, let’s revisit (A) and (B) before looking at the rest of our options:

Learning from the way we’ve fully analyzed the stimulus passage, we can see that (A) restates some scientists’ hypothesis that coral-reef fish owe their brilliant color to the fact that they’re camouflaged by coral. Remember that this claim is the position with which the author disagrees. While it is a conclusion, it’s other people’s conclusion and mentioned only to provide context for the author’s main point. (A) isn’t our answer. Rule it out and move on.

(B) remains wrong for the reasons we’ve already discussed. Not only is (B) a restatement of a premise, we know now that this premise isn’t even the author’s premise. It is other people’s premise in support of other people’s conclusion. .

Correct Answer Choice (C) Let’s take this sentence apart. What “suggestion” is being talked about? The suggestion that fish living in coral reefs exhibit brilliant colors because they are camouflaged by those reefs. What’s being said of the suggestion? That it’s mistaken. This is practically a verbatim quote of the sentence we already landed on as the main conclusion or main point— “This suggestion is mistaken.” Replacing referential language, (C) fully and accurately paraphrases the main conclusion.

Answer Choice (D) Just like (B), this answer restates a premise rather than the main conclusion. That a reef is dull and monochromatic is evidence in support of the author’s point. This is not the claim, and it’s not what the marine biologist means to convince us of. But (D) is better than (B) because at least (D) states the author’s premise.

Answer Choice (E) This answer choice also restates a premise and hence exhibits the same defects as (B) and (D). It is just like (D) in that it restates the author’s premise.

Lessons to review
Modifiers "That" and "Who"
Context or Other People's Position
Referentials
Three Methods to Identify Premises and Conclusions

Remembering to read our stem first, we see that we’ve come across another main conclusion question. At this point, it’s more important to recognize similarities between this argument and that of the previous question than it is to find the correct answer. For Logical Reasoning, pattern recognition is the name of the game. I often refer to that as cookie cutter analysis. Between this lesson and the last, did you recognize some patterns?

Notice that the stimulus again starts with other people’s position. Here we have some paleontologists who have suggested that Apatosaurus was able to gallop. That position is a hypothesis. By itself, it’s not quite an argument. We’re not told why these paleontologists believe that Apatosaurus was capable of galloping. This information is presented instead as others’ hypothesis, which more generally we call context.

Also similar to our last lesson we have the presence of the word “however” to indicate a shift to the author’s own argument. Now that we know some paleontologists suggest that Apatosaurus was able to gallop, the author’s main conclusion is that she disagrees with their hypothesis. “This is unlikely,” the stimulus tells us. Again we see the same pattern as the previous question where the author’s argument effectively took the form of saying: “you’re wrong.”

Why? “Because” works here as a premise indicator. Following this we know to look for a premise which supports the conclusion: galloping would have broken Apatosaurus’s legs. That sounds right. Galloping would have broken this giant dinosaur’s legs? It stands to reason that it probably didn’t gallop.

Still the argument continues. How does the rest of it fit in?

We’re told that experiments conducted on modern bones show how much strain these can take before breaking. Notice a little bit of analogizing starting to happen here. Whatever we’re about to say on the basis of the properties of modern bones relies on an assumption that modern bones are relevantly similar to Apatosaurus’s prehistoric bones. Keep that assumption in mind.

The final sentence describes how, applying what we know of the material constraints of modern bones to the diameter and density of Apatosaurus’s leg bones, it’s possible to calculate that galloping would have broken the dinosaur’s legs.

There’s a lot going on here. As already mentioned, there’s a bit of an analogy happening. On top of that, this is a complex argument structure. There are premises that support another premise. Why should we believe that galloping would have broken Apatosaurus’s legs? Because experiments with modern bones generate numerical constraints that, applied to Apatodaurus’s leg bones, produce the result that those bones could not have withstood galloping. These represent the argument’s minor premises. They support the major premise (which we also can call a sub-conclusion, as it receives the minor premises’ support) which itself supports the main conclusion: it is unlikely that Apatosaurus galloped. The sub-argument’s reasoning is via analogy while the main argument is fairly straightforward–although one of the answer choices will reveal an assumption.

Now let’s turn to our answer choices:

Hopefully you picked Correct Answer Choice (C). See how much resemblance (C) bears to the last lesson’s correct answer choice. (C) says that “the claim… is likely to be incorrect.” Just as we learned in the previous lesson, if an answer choice uses referential language, we’d better make sure that it is doing so correctly. What claim? The claim “of paleontologists that Apatosaurus was able to gallop.” Perfect. That claim is “likely to be incorrect.” Yup. That means the same thing as that claim is “unlikely to be correct.”

The LSAT writers are once again using the exact same trick to hide the correct answer choice: filling in the referent for a referential phrase.

Bringing our attention to Answer Choice (A) and Answer Choice (B), we notice the same trickery going on. Both of these are restatements of premises. (A) galloping would have broken Apatosaurus’s legs is practically a verbatim quote of the major premise. (B) it’s possible to calculate that Apatosaurus bones could not have withstood the strain of galloping without breaking is one of our minor premises.

With Answer Choice (D) and Answer Choice (E) we encounter something a little more interesting. (D) and (E) both point out assumptions that the argument has made. We are still in the Main Conclusion part of the curriculum so you don’t have to worry about assumptions yet. But future lessons on weakening and strengthening an argument will be all about learning to recognize where these assumptions happen.

(D) points to the central assumption in the argument: that if galloping would have broken the legs of Apatosaurus, then it probably was unable to gallop. The main argument didn’t explicitly state this. It merely assumed it. It’s logically possible that Apatosaurus, upon reaching adult size, galloped five meters, broke its legs, and died. That’s evolutionarily highly improbable but still, it’s an assumption. It’s just a reasonable assumption.

In a similar way, (E) calls out the assumption we noticed when we evaluated the sub-argument. In order to move from the minor premises to the major premise–because it’s an argument based on analogy–it’s necessary to assume relevant similarity between modern and prehistoric bones. Otherwise what do these premises (analysis of modern bones) have to do with the fact that galloping would likely have broken Apatosaurus’s leg bones? There needs to be a similarity for the argument to work.

Lessons to review
Nested Clauses
Context or Other People's Position
Complex Argument Structure
Referentials
Assumptions
Equivalent Claims

phen/hypo

analogy: exp w/modern bones to figure out constraints of ancient bones.

Once again, the question stem asks us to pick the answer choice that most accurately states the conclusion.

This stimulus is different in some key ways from the two we’ve already encountered. There’s no hypothesis provided to explain a phenomenon. This is a different kind of argument. However, there are some similarities and familiar elements as well.

The first of these similarities is that the author begins with context: sometimes it’s advisable for a medical patient to seek a second opinion. In the next sentence, “but” indicates a transition to our author’s claim. This works just the same way as “however” did in the previous two lessons, and logically the words are interchangeable. In fact, everything that we’ve seen so far is just the same here as those other instances.

Also similar is the fact that immediately after this “but/however” indicator, we’re given the author’s conclusion, which uses referential language. “This process” can be awkward for both patients and physicians. What process does the author mean? The process of being a medical patient or a physician while a second opinion is being sought. Putting these parts together we get our main conclusion: the process of seeking a second medical opinion can be awkward for patients and physicians.

Why?

Turning to the remainder of the passage, “since” is a premise indicator, and following this we’re given three premises that support the author’s conclusion.

The first premise is that a patient may worry about alienating her first physician, if she were to seek the advice of a second medical expert. On top of that, there’s also the issue of the first physician’s pride. The second premise says that second opinions tacitly underscore a physician’s fallibility. Lastly, our third premise tells us that providing a second opinion is a source of awkwardness for the second physician as well—the task of giving a second opinion inevitably and uncomfortably amounts to evaluation of a colleague’s work (that of the first physician).

Our three premises then come together to support the conclusion. This is simply a different type of argument from those of the last two lessons. Here, there’s a conclusion followed by three premises—all given in light of the first sentence’s context.

Correct Answer Choice (C) accurately paraphrases the conclusion that we already identified in the passage’s second sentence. Filling out the referential language helps us know to read “this process” as the process of obtaining a second medical opinion. What is being said of this process? In both the passage and (C), that it’s awkward.

Notice that referential language can work both ways. Within (C), the test writers have utilized referential language—“those involved”—to stand for details offered in the passage. Who are those involved? Physicians and patients. This is something new that we’re seeing with this answer choice. Referential phrasing is being utilized differently, but our existing understanding teaches us how to deal with it.

Next let’s look at Answer Choice (E). This answer choice is wrong, and it’s wrong in a repetitive way. (E) is incorrect for the same reasons we’ve seen in previous answer choices: it paraphrases a premise. Patients being concerned about offending their first physician is our first premise. (E) uses “many” to replace the stimulus’s phrasing “often.” Concern about offending a physician restates the worries that a physician will feel alienated. It’s not verbatim, but it’s still wrong because the paraphrase is of a premise.

Answer Choice (D) is interesting. We’re told that physicians called upon to offer a second opinion are always uncomfortable evaluating the work of colleagues. This sounds quite a lot like the argument’s third premise, so we know not to select it. But does it even accurately capture what this premise is saying? Taking a closer look will help us anticipate skills that we’re going to need for other question types down the road.

Take another look at the third premise. The second physician is in the position of evaluating a colleague’s work. There are two modifiers: “inevitably” and “uncomfortably.” Interjection makes the grammar here a little tricky, but “inevitably” does not modify “uncomfortably” as (D) would have you think. The language of (D) says that physicians giving second opinions are “always uncomfortable.” But that’s not how the original sentence works. “Inevitably” is modifying the second physician’s evaluation, and so is “uncomfortably.” Read the sentence with one modifier at a time. Physicians called upon to give second opinions are inevitably evaluating the work of colleagues. Now start over. Physicians called upon to give second opinions are uncomfortably evaluating the work of colleagues.

See how (D) relies on trying to get you to make a conflation? Just because a second physician is uncomfortably evaluating a colleague’s work, does it follow that this physician is always going to be uncomfortable? That’s very much unclear. As a preview for future lessons, when we do Most Strongly Supported questions, you don’t want to use an ambiguous claim like the third premise to back up an unambiguous claim like the one in (D).

Answer Choice (A) says that it’s best for patients not to seek second opinions unless absolutely necessary. This is also a new kind of answer choice. It comes totally out of nowhere. One thing to ask is whether this is even true based on what we’re told. The passage says only that it’s “sometimes advisable” for medical patients to seek out a second opinion, and the remaining sentences are a comment on the process’s awkwardness.

Look at how different (A) is. This statement begins from the awkwardness in the passage and says something entirely different: that it’s best not to seek a second opinion, except in cases where it’s necessary. There’s a giant gap between those meanings. This is a new kind of wrong answer, no longer simply restating one of the argument’s premises. It’s almost as though this answer choice is trying to engage the author of the original passage in conversation. Oh, it’s going to be awkward? Well, what should we do? Let’s just avoid the situation unless absolutely necessary.

Lastly, see how Answer Choice (B) is similar to (A) and (D). In much the same way, it’s not even clear that (B) is true. The first thing to notice is that (B) is talking about a different subset of cases than the stimulus. It defines a different world. In the stimulus we’re talking about the fact that sometimes it’s advisable to get a second opinion. (B) talks about cases in which second opinions are necessary. These necessary cases are a subset of the advisable ones. Of course some number of advisable cases will be super urgent—necessitating a second opinion. But (B) narrows in on this subset of cases to tell us that, in such cases, first physicians often feel their professional judgment is being called into question. This is a weird claim. Its content is adjacent to some of what was said in the passage, but it’s not a paraphrase. It doesn’t even exactly restate the second premise of highlighting a physician’s fallibility. Does highlighting fallibility amount to calling a physician’s judgment into question? What if the second opinion were to corroborate that of the first physician? The physician would remain fallible, but her professional judgment would be vindicated. (B) exploits a gap in those meanings.

I’d like to take a moment to point out the variety of ways that wrong answer choices can feel correct. (A), (B), and (D) are all incorrect, but in a really messy way. They mention words and topics used in the stimulus, but not in exactly the right order or in exactly the right way. This is going to become highly repetitive moving forward. It’s a good exercise to spend some time with the wrong answers and figure out just how it relates to the information in the stimulus.

Lessons to review
Referential "That"
Context or Other People's Position
Modifiers in the Predicate

sets-subsets (worlds / subsets of worlds)
"sometimes it is advisable to seek a 2nd opinion" != "in cases in which 2nd opinions are necessary"
advisable != necessary

Once again, our stem tells us that this is a Main Conclusion question. We’re asked to identify which of the answer choices most accurately expresses the conclusion drawn. Hopefully, you’re starting to get a sense of deja vu. If not–don’t worry! With more practice, you will.

Here, we again start with context. We’re told that many nursing homes have prohibitions against pets. Having laid out this policy, the author comments on it. “These should be lifted.” Notice the referential phrase “these.” What does it refer to? The prohibitions against having cats or dogs or tigers mentioned in the first part of the sentence. The author’s position is that nursing home pet prohibitions should be lifted, which we can identify as her conclusion.

Something to notice is that the stimulus’s switch from context to argument begins with “and.” This may seem a small point, but it’s important. Recall the lesson on indicators mentioned that these rules don’t hold true in 100% of cases. That they are rules of thumb. That they are both over- and under-inclusive. Here is an instance of where the list of words we learned are under-inclusive. “And” is not in that list yet “and” is being used here to indicate a turn from context over to argument.

So, why should we accept the claim that the prohibition against pets should be lifted? Couldn’t there be good reasons that nursing homes prohibit pets? The author needs to convince us and that’s exactly what she will attempt with the following two premises.

The first premise is that the presence of a pet can yield health benefits through reducing someone’s stress. That’s a good reason.

The second premise is that it’s more rewarding to have a pet in one’s home. We’re told that this will be important, as the average lifespan of the population is increasing. Here the author doesn’t explicitly flesh out the reasoning. Let’s do so. If you think about the average lifespan of a population increasing, what does that mean? People are dying later. They’re living longer, which means that overall more time is being spent in nursing homes. That’s why it’s important that the time residents spend in nursing homes be rewarding, because more and more people will be there for greater lengths of time.

Doesn’t this argument feel similar to the others we’ve seen? We start out with the context, and then we get the conclusion. The conclusion uses a referential “these” pointing back to information in the context. This argument is similar to the previous one in its form, or the way in which it’s arguing. We’re not looking at a hypothesis proposed to explain a phenomenon. Rather, we’re told the author’s position: that pet prohibitions in nursing homes should be lifted. Then we’re provided with reasons–or premises–that provide support.

Now let’s consider the answer choices:

Hopefully you chose Correct Answer Choice (C). I’d like to point out an old cookie cutter thing that (C) is doing as well as something new. The old thing is of course (C)'s use of referential phrasing. The new thing–which we’ve not yet seen in a MC question–is that (C) interprets what it means for a nursing home to lift a prohibition against having pets. That is: the policy should be changed to allow nursing home residents to have pets. That is not verbatim what the conclusion is. The words “policy” and “change” do not show up in the stimulus. Does that mean (C) is wrong? No. Because it’s highly reasonable to call the “prohibition” against pets a “policy” of these nursing homes. And because it’s a highly reasonable interpretation that “lifting” these prohibitions means a “change” that would allow the residents to have pets. This is the part that’s different from the previous answers we’ve looked at. (C) is much more of a paraphrase than the other correct answers we’ve encountered.

Next I’d like to direct our attention to Answer Choice (A) and Answer Choice (D). These are both cookie cutter wrong answers. In other words: they’re repetitive in the way that they’re incorrect. Both (A) and (D) paraphrase the argument’s premises, as we’ve seen several times before. (D) gives us the first premise, (A) the second. (D) restates the support that having a pet can reduce stress, thereby making one a healthier person. This is a good, accurate paraphrase of information found in the stimulus. However, premises are not conclusions. It’s the same with (A) which paraphrases the idea that a population’s increase in average lifespan means it will be important to a greater number of people that time spent in a nursing home be rewarding. This doesn’t even fully reproduce the second premise.

Answer Choice (B) and Answer Choice (E) both have a lot in common with some of the wrong answer choices we saw in our last question. I like to think of these as mishmash answer choices. The test writers will never give you a trap answer choice that’s completely irrelevant to the stimulus. For example, (B) would never give you some complicated claim about the economic policies of Napoleonic France because it would be too obviously irrelevant. Rather, it’ll be more subtly irrelevant. It’s a mishmash in the sense that it’ll borrow ideas, words, or phrases recognizable from the passage and mash them together.

(B) contains a lot of terms that are familiar from the stimulus: residents, nursing homes, reward aspects of life, etc. But the stimulus never really talks about these things in the way that (B) does. “Residents of nursing homes should enjoy the same rewarding aspects of life as anyone else.” That is quite a broad claim to make. Anyone else? Think about the rewarding aspects of life that anyone else–i.e., non-nursing home residents–enjoys. (B) is saying that nursing home residents should enjoy those same rewarding aspects of life. Is that what the author is trying to argue? There’s a huge mismatch between the breadth of (B) and the considerably narrower claim our author makes. The stimulus’s conclusion merely says that nursing home residents should be allowed to have pets. (B) is making this grand, big claim.

Perhaps the foundational principle outlined in (B) is what motivates the author to make her argument, but that’s just speculation. Nothing we’re given tells us the author’s motivation. We could imagine a world in which the author has applied the principle in (B) to the issue of whether nursing home residents should be allowed pets. Fair enough, but that doesn’t answer the question.

What we just did with (B) is a good exercise to do with wrong answers. See if the wrong answer has any relationship at all to the stimulus.

(E) says that the benefits older people derive from having pets needs to be recognized, especially as the average lifespan increases. Again, mishmash. The passage talks about the average lifespan increasing. It talked about deriving benefits–although not in the conclusion.

But let’s again do the harder task of understanding what (E) is saying and asking whether there’s any relationship between this claim and the argument. Often the answer is yes and here I think the answer is yes. (E) is not going far enough. Imagine that the administrator of a nursing home accepted the claim in (E). That doesn’t necessarily mean that the author has been successful in making her argument. The administrator can recognize the benefits of older people having pets without doing anything about it, without changing the nursing home’s policies to lift the prohibitions. (E) doesn’t go far enough.

Lessons to review
Referential "That"
Context or Other People's Position
Referential - Which
The Spectrum of Reasonableness

Once again the question stem asks for the answer choice that most accurately states the conclusion. As we read the stimulus together, we’ll encounter some old cookie cutter things. We’ll also encounter some new things, and hopefully through exposure those new things will become old and familiar when you see them next.

We’re told that gigantic passenger planes currently being developed will have enough space to hold shops and lounges in addition to passenger seating. Cool. So I can expect a Starbucks on my next transatlantic flight? Not so fast. Once again we see “however” indicating a transition to the author’s argument, relegating the first sentence to context. “However” what? However–the author wants us to note–the additional space will more likely be used for passenger seating. Let’s take a gamble and say that this second sentence is the author’s conclusion. We were just told that gigantic passenger planes are currently being developed with so much space that we can put a Starbucks in them. Yet the author claims that additional space will more likely be used for passenger seating.

Why? Our gamble pays off because the next sentence tells us.

It’s because the number of passengers flying the air-traffic system is expected to triple within the next 20 years, and it’s simply not going to be possible for airports to accommodate enough normal-sized jet planes to carry that many passengers. There won’t be enough space to land that number of normal-sized jet planes. In other words, we’ll need gigantic planes to carry more passengers. This is our premise in support of the conclusion.

Because we’re doing a Main Conclusion question, we’re spared from having to analyze this argument any further. What assumptions are being made in order to move from the premise to the conclusion? How reasonable are those assumptions? We know from our theory lessons that the reasonableness of those assumptions determines the strength or weakness of the argument as a whole. For now, we don’t have to answer any of those questions. Once we’ve identified the conclusion (the claim made in the second sentence), we can look at the answer choices and find the one that best paraphrases this conclusion.

Correct Answer Choice (B) says that the additional space in gigantic planes currently being developed is more likely to be filled with passenger seating than with shops and lounges. Close enough? Yes it is. (B) does something new that we haven’t seen yet from a correct answer. (B) makes explicit something implicit. Notice in the stimulus that the conclusion is given as a comparative claim, but it’s implicit. The additional space will more likely be used for passenger seating than what? A Cirque du Soleil show? No. The author just said in the context that it’s in comparison to a Starbucks, lounge, or shop of some sort that it is more likely added space will be used for additional seating. All (B) does is make this explicit. There is a little bit of a danger to this kind of answer choice. (B) could make the conclusion explicit in an incorrect way, in which case it would be wrong. But here the test writers have correctly made explicit the comparative claim that was merely implicit in the passage.

Another point to make about this argument is that it’s of a new kind. This is not the type of argument where we’re given a phenomenon followed by a hypothesis to explain that phenomenon. Nor is it the kind of argument in which the author stakes out a position that something should be done before giving her reasons why. This argument is making a prediction. She predicts that something is going to happen in the future? Why? She then gives the reasons.

If you’re wondering whether there’s an exhaustive list of kinds of arguments you’ll see on the LSAT, the answer is no. There are just too many, and the LSAT writers can always come up with novel types of argument. That’s why I think the best approach is an empirical one. Expose yourself to as many arguments as you can, and start taking stock of the kinds of arguments you’re seeing.

Answer Choice (C) and Answer Choice (D) are repetitively wrong. These are answer choices that again paraphrase the premises. (C) says that the number of passengers flying is expected to triple in the next 20 years. (D) tells us that it will be impossible for airports to accommodate enough normal-sized planes to carry that number of passengers. Both of these ideas are found as premises in the argument, so (C) and (D) are each incorrect in a cookie cutter way.

Answer Choice (A) is also cookie cutter wrong. Instead of paraphrasing the premises, (A) paraphrases the context. It’s true that gigantic passenger planes will have enough space to hold shops and lounges. We know this to be true from the first sentence, but it’s not the point the author wants to debate.

Lastly, Answer Choice (E) is a bit different. (E) doesn’t paraphrase something already present. Rather, it makes another prediction. (E) provides its own account of what’s going to happen in 20 years: most fliers will be flying in gigantic planes. We don’t know whether that’s true. Maybe in 20 years most fliers will still be in normal-sized jet planes. Certainly not all of them will be, because we know that it will be impossible for airports to accommodate that many normal-sized planes. But it could be that the majority are still flying in normal-sized planes. It could also be true that more airports are built in the next 20 years. We can come up with reasons why this prediction may not be true as a way to engage with this answer choice. Clearly it’s not correct, in that it does not paraphrase the conclusion. But again I’m asking you to look at a wrong answer choice and see if there’s any relationship to the claims being made in the stimulus. Often the answer is yes, and being able to articulate that relationship will help you see more clearly the kinds of traps that the LSAT writers like to employ.

Lessons to review
Referentials
Context or Other People's Position
Comparatives with "Than"
Implied Comparatives

While this question presents quite a challenge in terms of understanding what the content is saying, its form is cookie cutter. We’ve seen exactly this structure before.

The argument begins with other people’s position, that of many critics of consumerism. That’s our context. Here’s it’s not quite a full argument. We don’t know why these critics believe what they believe. The editorial just asserts that this is their belief. “However” once again indicates that we’re switching over to the author’s own argument. The author gives her conclusion first: that the accusation about the critics’ accusations rest on a fuzzy distinction. This is followed by a premise in support of the conclusion. In form, the question is just like many we’ve already seen.

The difficulty enters with trying to understand exactly what is being said. The topic is critics of consumerism. The editorial informs us of many critics’ position that advertising persuades people they need certain consumer goods when in reality they merely desire them. Let’s unpack that a little. Consider a piece of advertising. It’s true that an ad is probably trying to persuade you that you need the newest, fanciest car. Deep down, what’s really going on psychologically is that you merely want the car. That’s where the critics come in calling out this nefarious ad.

The editorial is saying hold on just a second. There’s something off about the critics’ accusations. That they rest on a fuzzy distinction between wants and needs. Okay, why should we believe the editorial? Look at the premise. We’re told that in life it’s often impossible to determine whether something is merely desirable or essential to one’s happiness. You may disagree with this premise, but that’s not the game we’re playing. Remember, when deciding whether something is a premise, ask yourself: if this claim were true, does it make the conclusion more likely true? Here our answer is yes. If the premise is true, then it’s more likely that the distinction between desires versus needs is fuzzy.

The content of this argument is philosophical and psychological. That’s what I meant when I said it’s kind of hard to follow. But, in spite of that, try to see past the substance and see the form of the argument. The form is cookie cutter. It’s repetitive. It’s something that we’ve now seen over and over again: context/other people’s claims followed by the author’s conclusion in disagreement followed by her premises.

Hopefully you were able to pick Correct Answer Choice (A). Again, this is repetitive and cookie cutter. (A) tells us that the claim [...] rests on a fuzzy distinction. This is exactly the conclusion. Notice that the answer choice gives us many words in the [...] that flesh out what this claim is. This had better be fleshed out correctly, otherwise (A) is incorrect. But here the description has been done right. Advertising persuades people that they need things they merely want. This is the referential phrase that tells us what the accusation mentioned in the conclusion refers to.

Answer Choice (B) is cookie cutter in the way that it’s wrong. (B) paraphrases the context claim. It gives us other people’s position.

Answer Choice (C) is a very revealing wrong answer choice. It’s incorrect in a new way, and we can learn from it. Notice first the subject of the editorial’s argument. What is the editorial talking about? The subject that it’s commenting on is other people’s (critics’) position (accusations). What’s the subject in (C)? Advertising. (C) passes judgment on advertisements that try to persuade people that they need certain things. (C) says there’s nothing wrong with that kind of advertisement. Take a moment to appreciate how different that is from what our author is saying. The editorial doesn’t talk about whether advertising is good or bad. It only comments on accusations of certain critics of advertisements.

The distinction was alluded to in the grammar lesson on nesting. What is the stimulus talking about? Well, think of the advertisements themselves as the base layer, ground level subject if you will. On the second layer, you’ve got the critics talking about these advertisements. They make certain accusations. On the third layer, you’ve got the author who has written an editorial talking about the critics’ accusation of those ads. Our author is commenting on someone else’s comments on certain advertisements. Nesting!

We could keep going actually. This video sits on the fourth layer because you and I are discussing the editorial, which itself discusses the critics’ accusation of the ads. And if there are comments below this lesson that talk about this video, that’s a fifth layer.

Anyway, I point this out because I want you to develop a sensitivity to nesting. You should recognize it when it’s present. That way, you’ll remember to pay attention to which layer we’re talking about. (C) is in the wrong layer. The editorial says nothing about the ads themselves.

Answer Choice (D) is a classic mishmash answer. Many critics of consumerism fail to realize that certain things are essential to human happiness. It’s mashing together certain things that appear in the argument. We saw some critics of consumerism in the stimulus, and we were introduced to what they have to say. (D) tells us that these critics overlooked the fact there are things essential to human happiness. Is that even a fair charge to lodge at these critics? All the critics said was that certain ads try to get people to conflate needs and desires. Nothing in this makes us think that the critics failed to consider what (D) says. Of course there are things essential to human happiness, but a different point is being made. Insofar as (D) has any relation to the argument, it’s lodging an unwarranted criticism at the critics of the ads.

Lastly, Answer Choice (E) says that critics of consumerism often use fuzzy distinctions to support their claims. Really? Author’s conclusion is that critics “often” do this? I don’t think so. The author is just trying to make a singular point about what a singular accusation from the critics. There’s not a hint of generalization.

However, let’s not let slip by an opportunity to learn something that will soon arise in the next set of questions, Most Strongly Supported. Look at the word “often.” Let’s say that everything in the stimulus is true. Can it be inferred that the critics of consumerism often use fuzzy distinctions to support their claims? No. Because we’re given a single instance of critics of consumerism doing this.

Okay. What if we changed the word “often” to “sometimes?” Again, let’s say that everything in the stimulus is true. Can it be inferred that the critics of consumerism sometimes use fuzzy distinctions to support their claims? Yes! Because we see them do it here with this particular accusation.

Were this question stem swapped out for a Most Strongly Supported stem, then the choice between “often” and “sometimes” would make all the difference.

All of this is a preview, so don’t worry if it’s not yet super clear.

Lessons to review
Context or Other People's Position
Referentials
Nested Clauses
The Art of Translating
Modifiers

sometimes (easier to support) v often (harder to support)

Once again, we see elements of this question that are quite cookie cutter. There are also a few new things to look out for.

Let’s begin by characterizing the passage’s form. The stimulus opens with contextual information. The transition from context to argument is indicated with the word “still.” The word “since” indicates the premise, and we see another premise indicator in the phrase “after all.” The argument’s minor premise supports the major premise (or sub-conclusion) which is in turn used to support the main conclusion: the trial was worthwhile.

The context says that a large company has been convicted of engaging in monopolistic practices, and the penalty imposed will have little to no effect on the company’s behavior. We don’t know specifically what this penalty is–perhaps a monetary fine–except that it’s too small, and the company can brush it off.

The author transitions to her argument with “still.” That’s new. We’re used to seeing “but” or “however” as the indicators that signal a switch from context to argument. But recall that the list of indicators we covered in the argument lessons are under-inclusive. We simply cannot anticipate every indicator that the test writers will use to transition from context to argument.

So, what does the author want to claim? That the trial was worth it. Hmm, but the context makes it seem as though the trial wasn’t worthwhile, because even though the company was convicted, they are unlikely to change their behavior of engaging in monopolistic practices. So why is the author saying that the trial was still worthwhile? Seems like we need some evidence or some premises to support this claim. That means this claim is likely the conclusion.

Reading on, we do get premises or reasons to believe the conclusion. The major premise tells us that the trial was worthwhile because it provided useful information about the company’s practices. This is a good reason. If it provided useful information, then it’s more likely that the trial was worthwhile. But why should we believe the new information is useful?

The argument’s minor premise provides an answer. The trial emboldened the company’s competitors, alerted potential rivals, and forced the company to restrain its unfair behaviors. All of this gives us support as to why the information is useful. Therefore, the trial was worthwhile.

Correct Answer Choice (D) captures this conclusion and it does so in a way we’ve seen many times by now. It fills in the referent for language used in the stimulus. The conclusion verbatim is “The trial was worthwhile.” What trial? The company’s trial on charges of engaging in monopolistic practices. That trial was worthwhile. That’s exactly what (D) says.

Let me plant a seed about timing strategy. Timing on the LSAT is brutal. It’s likely too early right now but perhaps when you drill MC questions, see if you practice identifying an argument’s conclusion then immediately flying through the answer choices hunting for the one that most closely matches. Once you do, move on. Don’t even look at the other answers. This speed will be important, because the faster you’re able to get a question right, the more time you’re able to bank away for other, harder questions.

Again, right now, as you work your way through these lessons, focus on getting the foundations solidly set. Speaking of which, Answer Choice (B) and Answer Choice (C) are both cookie cutter wrong answers.

(C) The penalty imposed will likely have little or no effect on the company’s behavior. This paraphrases part of the context.
(B) The light shed on the company’s practices by the trial has emboldened its competitors, alerted potential rivals, and forced the company to restrain its unfair behavior. That’s the minor premise.

Answer Choice (E) The penalty imposed on the company should have been larger. This information isn’t to be found anywhere in the stimulus. Should the penalty have been larger? We get a strong sense based on everything the author has said that she would likely agree that the penalty should have been larger. But that’s not the main point.

In the Reading Comprehension section, we’ll encounter Inference questions that ask us to anticipate what an author would likely agree with. There’s also some commonality here with Most Strongly Supported questions, which are the next type of Logical Reasoning question we’ll encounter. We’ll also encounter Point at Issue: Agree or Disagree questions in the future which will also ask us to read authors’ claims and infer from their perspective what other positions they’d likely agree or disagree with.

That’s not our current question type. Here we’re looking for a paraphrase that most accurately expresses the overall conclusion that the author actually drew. (E) fails to do so.

Answer Choice (A) attempts the same trick. Even if the company hadn’t been convicted of engaging in monopolistic practices, the trial probably would have had some effect on the company’s behavior. Again, the author doesn’t say this. She doesn’t speculate on what would have happened had the company not been convicted. But if we asked the author to speculate, then based on what she did say, we can reasonably infer that she would agree with (A). Once again, this is not the type of answer we’re being asked to provide.

Links to lessons
Complex Argument Structure
Context or Other People's Position
Referentials
Modifiers
Concession Indicators

prescriptive / descriptive - "penalty should have been larger"

As always, start with the question stem: Which of the following most accurately expresses the main conclusion of the musicologist’s argument? This is a Main Conclusion question, so you’ll want to identify the main conclusion of the stimulus and find the answer that most closely paraphrases it.

Here, we’re going to encounter a brand new kind of argument — at least to us. This type of argument is actually very common on the LSAT, so we want to be familiar with it.

So, let’s take a look at the stimulus:

Musicologist: Classification of a musical instrument depends on the mechanical action through which it produces music.

Okay, so here we have our first premise: To classify a musical instrument, you have to look at the mechanical action it performs to produce music. Got it.

The stimulus goes on:

So, the piano is properly called a percussion instrument, not a stringed instrument.

Note the conclusion indicator “so.” We have a conclusion.

Why? Why is it proper to call a piano a percussion instrument rather than a stringed instrument?

“Even though” introduces a concession point, a point that anticipates a common objection. Even though the vibration of the piano’s strings is what makes its sound… The author is anticipating that someone who disagrees with her might argue that the piano is a string instrument because it’s the vibration of the piano’s strings that makes its sound. She’s getting in front of this potential objection. She’s saying, “Yes, yes, I know that’s the case. But hear me out…”

She continues and refutes this objection with her second premise: the strings are caused to vibrate by the impact of the hammers.

Remember the opening premise: Musical instruments are classified by the mechanical action through which they produce music. The second premise tells us that the piano’s mechanical action is impact. Put the two premises together and you get the conclusion: the piano is properly classified as a percussion instrument.

The first premise gave us a general rule or principle which the second premise applied to the specific instance of the piano.

So, the new argument structure we’re presented with here is:

Premise One: A general rule.

Premise Two: An application of the rule to a particular instance in order to draw a…

Conclusion about that particular instance.

If you followed along with this analysis, you should have arrived arrive at:

Correct Answer Choice (E) It is correct to classify the piano as a percussion instrument rather than as a stringed instrument. This paraphrases the conclusion we identified very well.

Let’s run through the wrong answer choices too.

Answer Choice (D)The piano should be classified as a stringed instrument rather than as a percussion instrument. This should surprise you. Why would the LSAT writers offer an answer choice that flips the terms to the exact opposite of the correct classification? Because they know that under time pressure, people make reading mistakes. This answer choice is trying to trick you into misreading. One way to avoid reading mistakes is to trace beneath each word (with your finger, mouse, or stylus) as you read so that you read every word in the correct order.

Answer Choice (C) Some people classify the piano as a stringed instrument because of the way the piano produces sound. This is not actually stated anywhere in the stimulus. The musicologist does seem to warn against classifying the piano as a stringed instrument, and the existence of this classification might be weakly implied, but none of this answers the question or relates to the main conclusion.

(By the way, this is a preview of the next set of logical reasoning questions, Most Strongly Supported, in which we’ll place answer choices on a spectrum of “explicitly stated” to “strongly implied” to "weakly implied” to “merely suggested” all the way to “contradicted.” Here, (E) is explicitly stated, (D) is contradicted, and we can think of (C) as weakly implied or merely suggested.)

Answer Choice (B) Musical instruments should not be classified based on the way musicians interact with them. This doesn’t paraphrase the conclusion, but how does it relate to the stimulus? It also appears to be a principle of sorts. The first premise explains how musical instruments are actually classified, while (B) makes a claim about how they should NOT be classified. It’s a negative prescription about how to classify musical instruments. There’s a big difference between descriptive claims that, well, describe the world as it is and prescriptive claims like (B) that talk about how the world should (or should not) be. Make a note of this now. It’s something that will frequently recur.

Answer Choice (A) Musical Instruments should be classified according to the mechanical actions through which they produce sound. This paraphrases the first premise (explicitly stated by the stimulus). With some modifications, (A) could have been the right answer. Remember how this argument works: It states a general rule and then applies that rule to a particular instance to draw a conclusion. That structure could be flipped. Instead, we could examine a set of particular instances in order to generalize out of them a rule. This is called an argument by induction. If that’s what this argument was doing, then (A) would be the correct answer choice. But, it’s not!

Lesson to review
Concession Indicators

As always, start with the question stem: Which of the following sentences best expresses the main point of the musicologist’s reasoning? On the LSAT, “main point” is synonymous with main conclusion. This is a Main Conclusion question, so you’ll want to identify the main conclusion of the stimulus and find the answer that most closely paraphrases it.

Next, read the stimulus. Again, we’re dealing with a musicologist who gives us information:

Many critics complain of the disproportion between text and music in Handel’s da capo arias. These texts are generally quite short and often repeated well beyond what is needed for literal understanding.

Here, the stimulus begins in a rather cookie-cutter way. Our author, a musicologist, tells us what other people are saying. They’re complaining about the disproportion between text and music in Handel’s da capo arias. What does the author mean by “disproportion between text and music”? The second sentence fleshes out that complaint: The texts are short and repetitive beyond what is necessary for basic comprehension.

These two sentences setup context / other people’s points.

The following “yet” signals the transition from context into argument:

Yet such criticism is refuted by noting that repetition serves a vital function…

Note the referential phrasing of “such criticism.” What criticism? The criticism offered in the context above: that Handel’s da capo arias contain a disproportion between text and music.

The stimulus goes on to posit that the aforementioned criticism is refuted. Why? Because it “serves a vital function:” It frees the audience to focus on the music itself, which can speak to audiences whatever their language. In other words, however little text there is, it frees the audience to focus on the music — or so argues the musicologist.

So, we have the following argument structure:

Context/Other People’s Opinions: Critics argue that Handel’s da capo arias contain a disproportion between text and music.

Conclusion: This criticism is refuted.

Premise: The disproportion between text and music in Handel’s da capo arias frees the audience to focus on the music itself, which can speak to audiences regardless of language.

A review of the answer choice might have you perplexed. None seem to explicitly paraphrase the main conclusion. There is no perfect-match answer.

This brings up a principle to remember: The LSAT writers are serious when they ask which of the following “best” expresses the main point. Sometimes, the correct answer choice will not be the ideal answer choice. So instead you will have to compare the available answer choices and select the best option using the process of elimination (POE).

So, let’s look at the answer choices:

Answer Choice (A) Handel’s da capo arias contain a disproportionate amount of music. This is explicitly stated in the context, not the conclusion.

Answer Choice (B) Handel’s da capo arias are superior to most in their accessibility to diverse audiences. “Most” what? Presumably most other arias. Is this value judgment even true? We have no idea. The stimulus makes no such comparison between the accessibility of this aria to most other arias. It merely says that Handel’s da capo arias can speak to audiences regardless of their language, without comparing them to the ability of other arias to do this. This claim is unsupported by the stimulus.

Answer Choice (D) At least some of Handel’s da capo arias contain unnecessary repetitions. If this merely read “contain repetitions,” this claim would be true, but it still would be incorrect, because it’s not the conclusion. But (D) attaches the modifier “unnecessary” to the repetitions, which directly contradicts the musicologist’s conclusion that this repetition serves a “vital function.”

Answer Choice (E) Most criticism of Handel’s da capo arias is unwarranted. We know that many critics make a particular complaint about Handel’s da capo arias, but we don’t know anything about the other criticisms that exist. Perhaps there are many other criticisms apart from the one about the text/music disproportion, and all those other criticisms are warranted. That possibility would contradict this claim. We can’t conclude (E), because we don’t have access to the full set of complaints about Handel’s da capo arias, and (E) doesn’t match the conclusion, which is that this particular criticism about the text/music disproportion is refuted.

Correct Answer Choice (C) At least one frequent criticism of Handel’s da capo arias is undeserved. This isn’t the ideal answer choice, because it doesn’t directly paraphrase the conclusion (that a very specific criticism is refuted). Still, this claim is supported by the stimulus. We know that at least one criticism is “frequent” because the stimulus says that “many” critics complain (about the repetition, etc.). And the conclusion does argue that this criticism is underserved. Hence, at least one frequent criticism is undeserved. So even though (C) doesn’t explicitly identify the particular criticism at hand, it is an accurate (albeit general) claim derived from the conclusion. (C) is not ideal, but is correct.

(C) strongly resembles answer choices we’ll see as we move ahead to look at Most Strongly Supported questions.

Takeaways:

• Process of elimination is your friend.
• Sometimes the right answer choice is not the ideal answer choice.

Lessons to review
Context or Other People's Position
Referentials
Comparative - Relative v. Absolute