LSAT 31, Logical Reasoning I, Q22, LSATHacks

LR Question 22 Explanation, by LSATHacks

QUESTION TEXT: On the surface, Melville's Billy Budd is a simple story…

QUESTION TYPE: Principle – Must be True

CONCLUSION: We should be content with reading Billy Budd as a simple tragedy.

REASONING: There is no textual or historical evidence that Melville meant it as an allegory.

ANALYSIS: Normally we might consider factors other than an author’s intent when we classify a work. But the author of the stimulus seems to think that the author’s intent is most important, so we’ll go with that. 

We need a principle that tells us how to classify the work if we have no evidence about the intent. 

___________

1. Not quite. If there were evidence that Melville intended it as an allegory then the stimulus’ author might argue that we should view it as an allegory.
2. Not quite. We have no evidence as to the author’s stated intention. If we followed this principle then we wouldn’t know how to classify the book. 
3. No. We have chosen the unfavorable reading. The novel is most impressive as an allegory.
4. CORRECT. We have no evidence therefore we did not classify Billy Budd as an allegory. 
5. Not quite. The author also mentions that historical evidence would have been relevant.

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.