LSAT 102 | Section 3 | Logical Reasoning: Q17

LR Question 17 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: People cannot devote themselves to the study of…

QUESTION TYPE: Complete the Argument

CONCLUSION: Agriculture must have developed under conditions of plenty, not scarcity.

REASONING: The argument points out that people need leisure to study nature and they need surplus resources to have leisure. Agriculture required studying natural processes.

Agriculture ➞ studying natural processes ➞ leisure ➞ resources.

ANALYSIS: The main conclusion has to involve all parts of the argument. The argument mentioned the anthropologists in order to disagree with them: agriculture required plenty, not scarcity.

___________

1. This isn’t even true according to the argument. Study requires leisure, but leisure doesn’t always lead to study, as anyone who’s been a teenager knows.
2. This isn’t even true. The argument didn’t mention theory. You can figure out how to do something without making a correct theory to explain why it works.
3. CORRECT. Agriculture and the study of nature require leisure and therefore plentiful resources.
4. This doesn’t even have to be true. Non-agricultural societies could have known a lot about natural sciences even if they didn’t develop agriculture.
5. The argument didn’t even say this, or imply it. How could it be the conclusion?

Recap: The question begins with “People cannot devote themselves to the study of”. It is a Complete the Argument question. Learn how to master LSAT Complete the Argument questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.