LSAT 136 – Section 2 – Question 09

LSAT 136 - Section 2 - Question 09

June 2012

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:16

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
PT136 S2 Q09
+LR
Most strongly supported +MSS
Principle +Princ
Rule-Application +RuleApp
A
86%
165
B
4%
158
C
2%
156
D
5%
157
E
3%
157
135
145
155
 +Medium 146.855 +SubsectionMedium

In a party game, one person leaves the room with the understanding that someone else will relate a recent dream to the remaining group. The person then returns and tries to reconstruct the dream by asking only yes-or-no questions. In fact, no dream has been related: the group simply answers the questions according to some arbitrary rule. Surprisingly, the person usually constructs a dream narrative that is both coherent and ingenious.

Summary
In a party game, Person A steps out of the room, believing that Person B is sharing a recent dream with the rest of the group. Person A comes back and tries to reconstruct the dream by asking yes-or-no questions. But in reality, no dream was shared. The group just answers based on an arbitrary rule. Surprisingly, Person A usually makes up a dream story that is both coherent and clever, even though the “real” dream was never explained.

Strongly Supported Conclusions
People tend to try to make sense out of information, even when there is no sense behind it.
The belief that something is coherent and meaningful can cause someone to infuse that thing with coherence and meaning.

A
The presumption that something has order and coherence can lead one to imbue it with order and coherence.
This is strongly supported. Person A presumes that the dream has order and coherence, even though there is not really any dream at all. Nevertheless, because Person A presumes this, she then imbues her own construct of the dream with order and coherence.
B
One is less apt to reach a false understanding of what someone says than to make no sense out of it at all.
This is unsupported. The stimulus is not drawing a comparison between these two scenarios. Also, Person A does attempt to make sense out of the arbitrary answers that are given to her.
C
Dreams are often just collections of images and ideas without coherent structures.
This is unsupported. The stimulus tells us nothing about the structure of dreams. In fact, there is no dream related in the stimulus at all.
D
Interpreting another person’s dream requires that one understand the dream as a coherent narrative.
This is unsupported. Person A is not interpreting Person B’s dream; she is simply trying to reconstruct it. Also, again, there is not actually any dream related by Person B at all.
E
People often invent clever and coherent stories to explain their behavior to other people.
This is unsupported. Person A may be inventing a coherent story, but she is not trying to explain her behavior to other people. Rather, she is trying to reconstruct Person B’s supposed dream.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 136 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply