LSAT 137 – Section 2 – Question 14
LSAT 137 - Section 2 - Question 14
October 2012You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.
Target time: 1:33
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PT137 S2 Q14 |
+LR
| Necessary assumption +NA Conditional Reasoning +CondR Link Assumption +LinkA | A
60%
166
B
1%
155
C
21%
162
D
3%
154
E
15%
156
|
152 160 168 |
+Hardest | 146.731 +SubsectionMedium |
J.Y.’s explanation
You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.
Summary
The author concludes that none of the many interesting plays written last year will be popular several centuries from now.
Why? Because of the following:
In order for a play to be performed regularly over many decades and centuries, it must skillfully explore human nature.
The plays written last year (including the interesting ones) do not skillfully explore human nature.
Why? Because of the following:
In order for a play to be performed regularly over many decades and centuries, it must skillfully explore human nature.
The plays written last year (including the interesting ones) do not skillfully explore human nature.
Notable Assumptions
Notice that the conclusion bring up a new concept — not being popular several centuries from now. The premises don’t say anything about what will be unpopular several centuries from now, so we know the author must assume something about this concept.
To go further, we can anticipate a more specific connection to get from the premises to the conclusion. We know from the premises that the interesting plays written last year won’t be performed regularly over the coming decades and centuries (because they don’t examine human nature in a particularly skillful way). The author assumes that if the plays aren’t performed regularly over the coming decades and centuries, then they won’t be popular several centuries from now. Or, in other words, in order to be popular several centuries from now, they must be performed regularly.
To go further, we can anticipate a more specific connection to get from the premises to the conclusion. We know from the premises that the interesting plays written last year won’t be performed regularly over the coming decades and centuries (because they don’t examine human nature in a particularly skillful way). The author assumes that if the plays aren’t performed regularly over the coming decades and centuries, then they won’t be popular several centuries from now. Or, in other words, in order to be popular several centuries from now, they must be performed regularly.
A
No play will be popular several centuries from now unless it continues to be performed regularly during the intervening time.
This is the necessary link between the premises and the conclusion. If this were not true — if plays could be popular centuries from now even if they weren’t regularly performed — then the premises wouldn’t prove that the plays won’t be popular centuries from now.
B
For a play to deserve high critical acclaim it must be popular for more than just a few years.
The author’s reasoning has nothing to do with critical acclaim. The author mentioned critical acclaim in the beginning, but that was simply part of context and plays no role in the premise to conclusion structure of the author’s argument.
C
There were no plays written last year that the drama critic has neither read nor seen performed.
Not necessary, because the critic doesn’t have to have seen or read all the plays. We know as a premise that none of the plays written last year examine human nature in a skillful way. The critic doesn’t need to have seen or read all plays in order for that premise to be true.
D
If a play does not skillfully explore human nature, it will not receive critical acclaim.
The author’s reasoning has nothing to do with critical acclaim. The author mentioned critical acclaim in the beginning, but that was simply part of context and plays no role in the premise to conclusion structure of the author’s argument.
E
Any play that skillfully examines human nature will be performed regularly over the centuries.
The author’s argument concerns plays that do NOT skillfully examine human nature and what will happen to them. So the author doesn’t need to assume anything about what will happen to plays that DO skillfully examine human nature.
Take PrepTest
Review Results
LSAT PrepTest 137 Explanations
Section 1 - 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 2 - 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 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
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment. You can get a free account here.