QUESTION TYPE: Role in Argument
CONCLUSION: We shouldn’t think that people won’t be fooled by maps, even though they aren’t often fooled by words.
REASONING: People are taught to beware language, but people aren’t taught to beware maps.
ANALYSIS: This is an argument by analogy. We might think that people won’t be fooled by maps, because they aren’t fooled by language.
The statement in question tells us that there is an explanation for why people won’t be fooled by words, but there is no explanation for why people won’t be fooled by maps.
- The statement in question isn’t an analogy. It’s part of an analogy.
- Nonsense. It’s evidence. The claim about map education even comes after the claim in question. It can’t be drawn from it.
- CORRECT. Yes. The distinction is that people are taught to be cautious with words, but not taught to be cautious with maps.
- No, the first sentence has this support.
- The conclusion is the second sentence. It’s indicated by the ‘should not’. Any sentence with ‘should’ is generally a conclusion.
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly