LSAT 30, Logical Reasoning II, Q13, LSATHacks

QUESTION TEXT: Joseph's statement that “this alleged theorem simply…

QUESTION TYPE: Role in Argument

CONCLUSION: It is likely that Fermat was either lying or mistaken when he made his claim that he had a written proof for his theorem. 

REASONING: No one has been able to prove the theorem so it probably never can be proved. 

ANALYSIS: Joseph’s argument is not good (even without Laura’s info.) The fact that something has never happened does not prove that it never can happen.

The phrase in question is a premise that supports Joseph’s conclusion. It is also an intermediary conclusion, supported by the fact that no one has yet proven the theorem. 

Incidentally, I believe Fermat’s theorem has been proven since this LSAT question was written.

___________

1. There is support offered: no one has yet proven the theorem (as far as Joseph knows.)
2. CORRECT. A subsidiary conclusion is something supported by other evidence. The subsidiary conclusion in turn supports a final conclusion (Fermat was lying or mistaken.) 
3. No. Joseph agrees with this statement. He does not object to it.
4. Same as C. Joseph agrees that the theorem likely cannot be proven. 
5. The fact that the theorem cannot be proven directly supports Joseph’s conclusion. 

LawHub Order

LawHub Order

---