LSAT 41, Logical Reasoning II, Q18, LSATHacks

QUESTION TEXT: Tallulah: The columnist attributes the decline of interest…

QUESTION TYPE: Identify the Main Conclusion

CONCLUSION: The columnist overlooked some important evidence.

REASONING: The columnist did not consider that much contemporary fiction is terrible and there are many non-fiction materials available for reading.

ANALYSIS: When trying to identify an argument’s conclusion, you’ll need to figure out which parts of the argument support other elements.

Tallulah does not think the columnist’s conclusion is fully founded:

“In reaching this conclusion, the columnist has overlooked important evidence.”

The final sentences provide some of that evidence: contemporary novels often suck, and apart from technology there are also good newspapers, magazines, etc.

This evidence supports Tallulah’s conclusion, which is: the columnist ignored some evidence.

___________

1. This is just a premise. And Tallulah only says that it is “frequently” of poor quality, and “much of it” is depressing. Tallulah doesn’t say these things are always true of contemporary fiction.
2. Very tempting, but C is a better answer. Tallulah doesn’t say that the columnist’s claim is necessarily wrong, only that they ignored some evidence.
3. CORRECT. Yes. If you’re in doubt and have to choose between answers such as B and C, take a moment to re-read the conclusion: “the columnist has overlooked important evidence.”
4. Tallulah doesn’t even make this claim, so it can’t be the conclusion. We don’t know whether people read more or less overall.
5. True, but this is just supporting evidence. It supports the conclusion that the columnist overlooked relevant information.

Recap: The question begins with “Tallulah: The columnist attributes the decline of interest”. It is a Identify The Conclusion question. Learn more about LSAT Identify questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.

---