Self-study
Many scholars claim that Shakespeare's portrayal of Richard III was extremely inaccurate, arguing that he derived that portrayal from propagandists opposed to Richard III. ███ █████ ██████ ███ ██████████ ███ ████████████ █████████████ █████ ███ █████████ ██ ███████ ███ ██ █████████ ██ █████████████ █████ ██ ███████████ ███ ████████████ ████ █████████████ ███ ████████ ██████████ ██ ███ ████████ ██ ██████████ █████
Objective: Pseudo Sufficient Assumption / Find The Rule Questions
A common misconception on the LSAT is that “principle questions” are a thing. In fact, the word “principle” appears in multiple question types which you should treat very differently. The most important thing to look for when you see the word “principle” is whether the principle points up or down. Some questions (PSAa or Rule Application questions) give us a principle in the stimulus and ask us to apply it down to the answer choices. These are akin to Most Strongly Supported questions, where we must be cautious of overstrong language and stick only to inferences supported by the stimulus.
This question (a PSAr or Find The Rule question) does the opposite: it presents a bunch of principles in the answer choices and asks us to apply them up to the stimulus in an effort to justify the argument. These are akin to Strengthen questions, where overstrong language is completely fine and we’re hoping to bridge any gaps in the argument we can find.
PSAr questions tend to follow routine patterns, and our approach can therefore be similarly routine. First, it’s critical to identify the argument’s conclusion and the premise(s) that seek to support it. In a shockingly high proportion of PSAr questions, the correct answer will take the form: Premise → Conclusion.
Like in normal Strengthen questions, though, it’s also important to note any common flaws you see, or (especially) subtle jumps from one concept to another (e.g. from talking about athletes to talking about professional athletes). Correct answers that address weaknesses like these are common as well.
Argument Summary And Rule Anticipation
Here’s a distillation of the argument’s core structure and content:
Context: Portrayal was inaccurate.
Premise: Portrayal was really good in other ways.
Conclusion: The inaccuracy is irrelevant to appreciation.
Irrelevant is a strong word. That’s the key here. Let’s say we’re judging Shakespeare's play on a points system:
Aesthetically Fascinating & Illuminating: 10pts
Morally Fascinating & Illuminating: 10pts
Inaccuracy being irrelevant means it doesn’t affect the point total at all.
It turns out the correct answer in this question departs from the Premise → Conclusion pattern a bit, but we don’t know that yet. Here’s the Premise → Conclusion style anticipation:
If a portrayal is good in other ways, its inaccuracies don’t affect appreciation at all.
15.
Which one of the following ███████████ ██ ██████ ████ █████ ██ ███████ ███ █████████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████
a
In historical drama, ███ █████████ █████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ███ ███████████ ██████████ ██ ██████████ █████████████
As mentioned, this answer departs a bit from the simple Premise → Conclusion structure because it’s a bit more specific, but it has the same effect in the end. Thinking about our points system again, (A) says:
You don’t lose points in the “Aesthetically Fascinating & Illuminating” category just because your portrayal is inaccurate.
Our anticipated principle said something more like “you don’t lose points anywhere,” but this works too. It still helps us claim inaccuracies don’t affect the point total.
I can already hear some of you shouting “but what if you lose points in the “Moral” category?!?”
Well, that’s why we call these Pseudo Sufficient Assumption questions. While we often do completely close these arguments’ gaps, we don’t technically have to. All we have to do is Strengthen.
b
In dealing with ████ ███████ ██████████ ██████ ███████ █████ █████ ███████████
(B) says “Inaccuracies are bad!” which would cleanly weaken our argument. Probably best seen as a trap for people who forgot we aren’t in a Weaken question.
c
Shakespeare's historical importance ████ ███ ██████ ███ █████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████████
(C) is broadly on team Shakespeare, and our author is too. But our author doesn’t want to claim you’re not allowed to evaluate Shakespeare's works at all – for example, the author is down to evaluate them aesthetically and morally.
It’s like our author is saying “I think we should punish thieves,” and (C) is coming in hot with “Yeah! We should launch them and their families into space!”
d
History is always ████ ██ █████████████ ████ ███ ███████ █████
This claim is unmoored from the important terms in our argument. (D) gives us “the winning side.” But what’s the significance of being on the winning side?
At its best, (D) somehow challenges the idea that Shakespeare’s portrayal of Richard III was inaccurate. Maybe because the propagandists must have been from the winning side and they therefore… are super accurate?
But our conclusion doesn’t actually care whether the portrayal was inaccurate or not. In fact that’s kinda the author’s whole point: the debate about whether Shakespeare’s portrayal was accurate or not is irrelevant to our appreciation.
e
Historical inaccuracies should ██ █████████ ████ ████ ████ ██████ ███ ███████████ ██ ████ ███████
This principle is unmoored from the important terms in our argument. “Good people” as a concept doesn’t appear in the stimulus, so we have nowhere to apply this principle. Was Richard III a good person or not?