LSAT 142 – Section 2 – Question 07

LSAT 142 - Section 2 - Question 07

December 2014

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 0:53

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
PT142 S2 Q07
+LR
+Exp
Point at issue: disagree +Disagr
Value Judgment +ValJudg
A
2%
155
B
1%
150
C
2%
157
D
95%
164
E
0%
148
124
133
143
 +Easiest 146.338 +SubsectionMedium

Talbert: Chess is beneficial for school-age children. It is enjoyable, encourages foresight and logical thinking, and discourages carelessness, inattention, and impulsiveness. In short, it promotes mental maturity.

Sklar: My objection to teaching chess to children is that it diverts mental activity from something with societal value, such as science, into something that has no societal value.

Speaker 1 Summary
Talbert claims that chess is good for children (and we can reasonably assume from this that we should teach children chess). Why? Because it teaches the children mental maturity. And how does it do that? By encouraging skills like foresight and logical thinking, and discouraging flaws like carelessness, inattention, and impulsiveness.

Speaker 2 Summary
Sklar’s argument supports the unstated conclusion that we should not spend time teaching chess to children. Why not? Because the mental resources that children spend on chess could instead be used on more socially valuable pursuits like science.

Objective
We need to find a point of disagreement. Talbert and Sklar disagree about whether we should teach children chess.

A
chess promotes mental maturity
Talbert agrees with this, but Sklar doesn’t express an opinion. Sklar doesn’t mention any of the benefits that chess may or may not have for children, and instead just focuses on the social value of chess compared to other pursuits.
B
many activities promote mental maturity just as well as chess does
Neither speaker states an opinion about this claim. Talbert doesn’t discuss activities other than chess at all. Sklar does talk about other activities, but only about their societal value, not their ability to promote mental maturity.
C
chess is socially valuable and science is not
Sklar disagrees with this, but Talbert doesn’t state an opinion. Talbert doesn’t mention social value at all, and also doesn’t mention science at all.
D
children should be taught to play chess
Talbert agrees with this and Sklar disagrees: this is their disagreement. Talbert focuses entirely on the value of chess, so it’s reasonable to assume that Talbert believes we should teach chess. Sklar’s implicit main conclusion is that chess wastes time and shouldn’t be taught.
E
children who neither play chess nor study science are mentally immature
Neither speaker makes this claim. Talbert focuses entirely on the benefits of chess, not on the outcomes for children who don’t play chess. Sklar, on the other hand, never talks about mental maturity.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 142 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply