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

Target time: 1:41

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 ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView
Choices
Curve Question
Difficulty
Psg/Game/S
Difficulty
Explanation
PT42 S2 Q19
+LR
Sufficient assumption +SA
A
7%
159
B
6%
157
C
60%
165
D
2%
156
E
26%
159
151
159
168
+Harder 147.084 +SubsectionMedium

Sufficient Assumption question, pretty standard, cookie cutter question that we should be able to anticipate the answer choice.

But, it's difficult because of the embedded argument within an argument, heavy use of referential phrasing, and grammar parsing.

Author's argument begins with "however". The text before "however" is just context/other people's argument that will later serve as the referent for a referential phrase used in the conclusion.

"one must mine the full imp... to make intell prog"
Think about what's necessary and what's sufficient in this relationship. Does mining the full imp guarantee that we'll make intell prog? No. It's the other way around.

"for this, thinkers need intell discipline"
What does "this" refer to?

If you answer both of the above questions correctly, you'll end up with the proper translation of the premise below:

intell prog --> mine full imp --> intell discipline

The conclusion says "this argument for free thought fails". This takes a bit of interpreting. Look at all the text before "however". That's where we get the argument for "free thought". What's the conclusion? Focus on the indicator "because". The conclusion is "free thought is a precondition for intell prog". Now, what's the relationship here? A precondition. Something we must have. A necessary condition.

intell prog --> free thought

That's just the contextual conclusion though. Our author is arguing that that's wrong.

NOT (intell prog --> free thought)

Fully translated, it looks like this:

intell prog --> mine full imp --> intell discipline
_______________
NOT (intell prog --> free thought)

So, how do we make this argument valid? We can make intell discipline imply NO free thought. (C) gives us the contrapositive.
free thought --> NO intell discipline.