LR Question 14 Explanation, by LSATHacks
QUESTION TEXT: Joseph: My encyclopedia says that the mathematician…
QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning
CONCLUSION: Laura concludes that Fermat was neither lying nor mistaken when he claimed to have proven the theorem.
REASONING: Someone else did prove the theorem (therefore it was possible to prove the theorem.)
ANALYSIS: Laura makes the mistake of assuming that since it was possible for Fermat to have proven the theorem then Fermat must have proven the theorem.
It is possible that Fermat didn’t actually prove the theorem, even though someone else did later.
___________
- The fact that someone did prove the theorem does not contradict the idea that Fermat did. In fact it shows its is possible that Fermat did prove it. It doesn’t make it certain that Fermat proved the theorem, of course.
- Laura hasn’t said anything about the quality of Fermat’s character.
- CORRECT. For Fermat to have proven the theorem it is necessary that it was possible. But the mere fact that it was possible doesn’t mean that Fermat actually did prove the theorem.
- Everyone can figure out what provable means: possible to prove true.
- Laura doesn’t mention either of these two phenomena. Joseph made the mistake of thinking that a true claim (the theorem can be proven) was false, but that doesn’t have much to do with Laura’s reasoning.
Hi, I'm Graeme Blake
Founder of LSAThacks; I scored a 177 on the LSAT.
I created the LSAT Mastery Seminars, which are part of the Ultimate LSAT Prep Bundle
If you like the explanations you're reading I'm 100% confident you'll enjoy the courses. Satisfaction guaranteed.
---------
Updates:
For updates, sign up for my email list. I update whenever I have new posts.
I got this wrong. I knew what the problem was. That proving the theorem right, doesn’t mean that Fermat was not lying or mistaken.
But, I had a hard time understanding the abstract language. I was stuck between “C” and “E,” didn’t understand what they both said, and wrongly chose “E.”
Is there a way to get good at abstract language?
Practice matching up the terms in the answer to terms in the stimulus to see if it fits. Or try to think of an example of what each answer refers to. Do this as a review exercise. Use a dictionary to look up every word.
And use simple examples. For example: “A phenomenon which is necessary for an outcome to occur but which is not sufficient.”
“Playing with your dog is essential to keeping them happy.”
Phenomenon: playing
Necessary: playing
outcome: dog happy
You can describe simple ideas with abstract terms, and this helps you understand the abstract terms better.
Note: This is an old comment but I wanted to clarify the point.