LSAT 105 | Section 1 | Logical Reasoning: Q21

LR Question 21 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Two doctrines have been greatly influential …

QUESTION TYPE: Necessary Assumption

CONCLUSION: Both doctrines are mistaken.

REASONING: There have been events that were due to both economic factors and early childhood experience.

ANALYSIS: We know that the doctrines primarily focus on either economics or on early childhood. But they never claimed to be mutually exclusive. Yet the conclusion treats it as such.

So the gap here is that the conclusion assumes they’re mutually exclusive, but we need to actually establish that. Otherwise the argument makes no sense.

___________

1. CORRECT. The negation destroys the argument. If the first doctrine allows for other factors besides economics, then the conclusion makes no sense.
   Negation: The first doctrine does not preclude noneconomic factors in explanations of historical events.
2. Placing importance is too weak. We need to show exclusivity.
   Negation: The second doctrine does not place importance only on childhood experiences.
3. The argument doesn’t depend on both factors being equally influential, just that they both exist in some events. Which is dominant isn’t relevant to the conclusion.
   Negation: Historical events are not influenced as much or as little by economic factors as by psychological factors.
4. The conclusion doesn’t argue that both are present in any given event, just in some. Also, proposed is different from actually having influenced.
   Negation: One is not likely to find that both economic and psychological explanations have been proposed for any given historical event.
5. Similar to D – we don’t need both explanations for every historical event, just some.
   Negation: Appeals to both economic and psychological factors are not needed to understand any historical event properly.