LR Question 22 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Because of the ubiquity of television in modern households…
QUESTION TYPE: Sufficient Assumption
CONCLUSION: Few of today’s children will develop a lifelong interest in literature.
REASONING: Television is ubiquitous and attracts children with flashy visual appeal. This means few children today spend free time reading stories.
ANALYSIS: The break in the reasoning here is fairly apparent – hopefully you were able to spot it! The author says that kids are reading less, and concludes that fewer kids will have a lifelong interest in literature. But we need to connect these, so we should look for an answer that tells us that kids only develop the lifelong interest if they spend their free time reading stories.
___________
- This is the opposite of what we want. It says that all kids who spend free time reading will develop the interest. But it doesn’t say that spending free time reading is the only way.
- CORRECT. This is exactly what we were looking for. The only way to develop the lifelong interest is to spend free time reading. But few kids spend free time reading, so few kids will develop the lifelong interest.
- This answer is deliberately confusing, with its double negative. It essentially says that all kids without a television will spend free time reading. This might be true, but it doesn’t complete the chain of reasoning.
- This tells us that kids who watch a “great deal of television” are unlikely to develop the lifelong literature interest. But that doesn’t complete our reasoning. We don’t have any information about how many kids are watching a great deal of television – only that television is attractive.
- This doesn’t connect our argument with our conclusion. It draws a deeper distinction between television-watchers and readers, but does not tell us that few children will develop a lifelong interest in literature.
Recap: The question begins with “Because of the ubiquity of television in modern households”. It is a Sufficient Assumption question. Learn more about LSAT Sufficient questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.
More Resources for Sufficient Assumption Questions
- Conditional Reasoning Article: Learn about conditional statements.
- LR Diagrams Guide: Learn how to draw LR diagrams.
- Intro to Conditional Reasoning: Learn conditional reasoning basics.
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Sufficient Assumption questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers sufficient assumption questions.
Hi! I was a bit thrown off by ‘people’ as opposed to ‘kids’ or ‘children’ in AC B, which is why I chose A. Is there a way to known when it’s reasonable to ignore a small difference like that?
Hi, good question! Unfortunately, there’s no specific rule but I can give some pointers to look out for.
In this case, “children” are a subset of the group “people” referred to in answer B. Additionally, “people who currently spend their free time .. will develop a lifelong interest …” can reasonably be interpreted as a younger person needing to do something to develop a lifelong interest, which obviously includes children.
So, some things you may find helpful:
1. Don’t rule out an answer on the basis that the group looks a little different than the stimulus. You should only rule it out if it’s obvious that the group referred to in the answer cannot include the stimulus or vice versa. Usually this won’t be the case because this would be too low-hanging fruit for the LSAC.
2. If there’s no immediate reason to rule an answer out on that basis, focus on the logic. Whether an answer choice says “children” or “people” wasn’t the key here, it was the logic that enables you to draw conclusions about lifelong interests.
TLDR: Focus on the logic, not the group unless there is a very specific or obvious reason why those two groups can’t be correct (i.e. if there was some reason children can’t be considered people, which obviously isn’t the case). It’s definitely tricky but I hope that helps!
Hi there,
I’m studying for the October exam. My study method has pivoted from simply doing drills, to now creating specific drills based on the question types I tend to miss.
For example, since I struggle with flaws and sufficient assumption questions, I used https://www.trainertestprep.com/lsat/logical-reasoning-breakdown to find out which questions, and on which tests, those types of questions were given, then practiced by going through the LawHub simulation and only answering the questions I needed.
However, I find it to be tedious and time consuming to take the test on one website, then search the internet for explanations of the questions I get wrong, instead of having it all in one resource.
(A resource that offers tests AND answer explanations)
Does this resource, “lsathacks.com” provide what I’m looking for? I have just apparently wasted $120 on LawHub’s premium service, thinking there would be answer explanations for each question. (I originally used the resource for free, and the 2 tests I did first, 140 and 141, both had answer explanations for each question. As I continued, and bought the subscription, it became clear that those were the ONLY tests with explanations attached.)
I am struggling to improve on certain LR question types without sufficient explanations for why my choices are wrong/right.
Please get back to me!
Thank you.
Hi Sophia! Sorry to hear about your troubles. While LSATHacks does not offer a test interface (i.e. you cannot do tests on our website the same way you can on LawHub or Khan Academy), we have resources you can use in conjuction with interfaces. We have free explanations here for the new PT format: https://lsathacks.com/new-explanations/, as well as Members Only explanations you can purchase. If you want to have these explanations in PDF format, you can also purchase that on our website.
Additionally, we have our own comprehensive lists of each Logical Reasoning question type so you can drill those: https://lsathacks.com/guide/logical-reasoning/questions-by-type/.
Graeme’s explanations are very comprehensive for each question – and most of them are free – so users definitely find them extremely helpful despite the tradeoff of not having a direct interface on LSATHacks. Hope that helps clarify things!
I’m confused why (A) isn’t the right answer. The premise says that a certain number of kids spend their free time reading (FTR), and we need to find the answer choice that leads to a few children to develop an in lifelong interest in reading (LLIR)
(A) says FTR –> LLIR (contrapositive: ~LLIR –> ~FTR)
(B) says LLIR –> FTR (cp: ~FTR –> ~LLIR)
Since we’re given that a few kids FTR and need to show a few kids will LLIR, isn’t (A) the right choice?
B only says that those who develop a LLIR can only do so from spending their free time reading, but it doesn’t guarantee that kids who spend their free time reading to LLIR.
I understand your confusion, but hopefully this helps explain:
First, let’s clarify the premise and conclusion.
Premise: Few children spend their free time reading stories because of television.
Conclusion: Few children will develop a lifelong interest in literature.
To connect these two, we need to assume that something makes it impossible (or at least very unlikely) for children who don’t read stories to develop a lifelong interest in literature.
(A) says that IF children spend their free time reading stories, they will develop a lifelong interest in literature. This is a sufficient condition, but it doesn’t address the core of the argument: what happens to those who don’t spend their free time reading stories.
“FTR → LLI”
Contrapositive: “not LLI → not FTR”.
We want a contrapositive that says “not FTR → not LLI”. A doesn’t give us that. It doesn’t help us bridge the gap.
(B) does not say “LLI → FTR”. It actually says “FTR ↔ LLI, meaning that FTR and LLIR are equivalent conditions: if a child spends their free time reading (FTR), they will develop a lifelong interest in literature (LLI), and if they develop a lifelong interest in literature, it must be because they spent their free time reading.
Another way to write this is “If and ONLY if FTR → LLI”. The contrapositive of this is “If not FTR → not LLI” and “If not LLIR → not FTR,” or simply “not FTR ↔ not LLIR” This means that if children do not spend their free time reading stories, they will not develop a lifelong interest in literature, which directly supports the conclusion of the argument.
So, while (A) provides a condition under which children might develop an interest in literature, (B) is stronger because it limits the possibility of developing that interest only to those who are already reading stories, which is exactly what the argument needs to establish its conclusion.