LSAT 158 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q11

LR Question 11 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: The chorus in a play, like a narrator in a novel …

QUESTION TYPE: Necessary Assumption

CONCLUSION: A chorus in a play is not equivalent to a narrator in a novel.

REASONING: Both provide commentary and context, but the chorus sometimes gives information that conflicts with the rest of the play.

ANALYSIS: We have some shared features:

• Both are from a different POV than the characters
• Both provide commentary and context

Then we have a piece of information specific to the chorus: it sometimes gives inconsistent information.

From that, the author concludes that the chorus and narrator aren’t equivalent. So the reason must be the inconsistent information part, because everything else we’re told about is the same.

For this to work, we must assume that narrators in novels never give inconsistent information. Otherwise, this too would be the same, and the conclusion (that they’re different) would not work.

___________

1. This is a trick: deceptive is different than inconsistent information. We don’t know whether the inconsistent information is intentional.
   Negation: The narrator in a novel is sometimes deceptive.
2. We don’t care when narrators are needed, we care about whether chorus and narrator are the same.
   Negation: The narrator is never needed in plays with a chorus.
3. This just describes the role that choruses play, but doesn’t tell us how that relates to narrators.
   Negation: The chorus never introduces necessary information.
4. CORRECT. The argument depends on narrators not introducing inconsistent information. Without this, we have no reason to conclude that they’re different.
   Negation: Narrators sometimes introduce inconsistent information.
5. The trick here is similar to A. We don’t know nor care about intent. The outcome is inconsistency, and we need that to be different for narrators vs. choruses.
   Negation: Authors never use choruses to mislead audiences in plays.