LSAT 131 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q7

LR Question 7 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Columnist: It has been noted that attending a live musical

QUESTION TYPE: Role in Argument

CONCLUSION: There must be some other reason that live music is richer than recorded music.

REASONING: Some say the difference is because we see performers. Yet we don’t notice a difference between hearing a story on the radio and watching someone tell a story.

ANALYSIS: This question asks about the role of the first sentence. That sentence is an observation that some have tried to explain. Does the author try to explain it? No: they just attack one possible explanation.

Their conclusion is not “my reasoning explains this”. Instead, it is “That explanation is wrong. There must be some other explanation.”

___________

1. I’m actually not sure what this would refer to. It feels like it’s missing a word. Like it should end in “purports to show is true.”
   If you picked this, sorry: I have no idea what it means, so I can’t explain it. This answer seems like poor English.
   If this answer does mean “purports to show is true”, then no, that’s not what the author does. They instead assume the statement is true.
2. Actually, the opposing claim doesn’t give a reason. It just lists a conclusion. (Which is that we prefer live music because we see the performer.)
3. This is the trap answer. The author doesn’t offer their own explanation! They merely conclude “well, there must be some other reason.”
4. Another trap. The author is refuting an explanation of this claim. But the author accepts the claim itself.
5. CORRECT. Here’s the structure:
   Fact: We prefer live music
   Purported Explanation: Ooh, maybe that’s because we see the performer!
   Author: That is wrong. We see storytellers, but don’t prefer them to radio.