LSAT 149 – Section 4 – Question 03

LSAT 149 - Section 4 - Question 03

December 2017

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 0:43

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
PT149 S4 Q03
+LR
+Exp
Main conclusion or main point +MC
Analogy +An
A
3%
157
B
0%
144
C
0%
148
D
95%
163
E
1%
153
120
129
140
 +Easiest 147.325 +SubsectionMedium

Restaurant owner: The newspaper reporter who panned my restaurant acknowledges having no special expertise about food and its preparation. His previous job was as a political reporter. He is a good writer, but he is not a true restaurant critic. A newspaper would never call someone a drama critic who had no special training in theater.

Summarize Argument
The restaurant owner concludes that the critic who panned her restaurant is not a true restaurant critic. This is because the critic has no special expertise about food.

Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is about the critic who panned the owner’s restaurant: “he is not a true restaurant critic.”

A
The newspaper reporter who panned the restaurant acknowledges having no special expertise about food and its preparation.
This is a premise that the restaurant owner uses to demonstrate that the critic isn’t a true restaurant critic. She uses the analogy of a drama critic to show that special expertise is required to be called a “true critic.”
B
The previous job of the newspaper reporter who panned the restaurant was as a political reporter.
This is support for the restaurant owner’s claim about the critic not being a “true critic.” A background in political reporting is very different than expertise in food and food preparation.
C
The newspaper reporter who panned the restaurant is a good writer.
The restaurant owner concedes that the critic is a good writer but maintains he isn’t a true critic. This is neither a premise nor a conclusion, as it does’t add to the restaurant owner’s argument.
D
The newspaper reporter who panned the restaurant is not a true restaurant critic.
This is what the restaurant owner is arguing for. Since the reporter lacks expertise in food and food preparation, and since no one would call someone a drama critic without expertise in their analogous field, the reporter isn’t a true critic.
E
A newspaper would never call someone a drama critic who had no special training in theater.
This is a premise used to show why the reporter in question isn’t a true critic. Since no one would call someone a critic in an analogous field without expertise, the reporter shouldn’t be called a restaurant critic without food expertise.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 149 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply