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

Target time: 1:18

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
PT69 S4 Q21
+LR
Sufficient assumption +SA
A
53%
168
B
6%
157
C
4%
159
D
30%
163
E
7%
157
156
164
171
+Hardest 148.326 +SubsectionMedium

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

This question is difficult because of the obscuring of the premises and conclusion. Here's the premises and conclusion distilled, utilizing the skills we learned in our grammar lessons.

published --> prof. N promise to urge dean to promote S --> prof. N urge dean to promote S --> S promoted
_____________
import & well written --> S promoted

Reducing it, the argument goes:

published --> S promoted
_____________
import & well written --> S promoted

Formulaically, we want to supply the missing premise: import & well written --> published

But, the LSAC did something new this time. They gave us: import --> published

That actually works!

To see why, let's think about an analogous argument.

If you buy milk, then you will use cash. Therefore, if you go to store & gas station, you will use cash.

Formulaically, we want to supply the missing premise: if you go to store & gas station, you will buy milk. But, doesn't that feel a little redundant? What if I just said "if you go to store, you will buy milk."

That also allows us to validly draw the conclusion that "if you go to store & gas station, you will use cash."

In fact, it'll even allow us to validly draw the conclusion that "if you go to store & gas station & mars & russia, you will use cash."

Very clever, those LSAT writers