LR Question 15 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Trustee: The recent exhibit at the art museum was extensively…
QUESTION TYPE: Flaw
PREVIEW: FLAW: The argument assumes that the local....Get the Complete Solution
Most LSATHacks explanations are free. This particular explanation is licensed to LSATHacks by a third party, so we can only show it to members. Join LSATHacks Pro to unlock this explanation and 700+ others.
Unlock This Explanation
Already a member?
Login
Recap: The question begins with “Trustee: The recent exhibit at the art museum was extensively”. It is a Flawed Reasoning question. Learn how to master LSAT Flaw questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.
More Resources for Flaw Questions
- Flaw drills: Use these to practice making examples of abstract flaws.
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Flaw questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers flaw questions.
Hi! For the phrasing in the stimulus, would “contributed to” be the indicator that tells us something is not enough to be necessary or sufficient? In terms of indicators, this is not strong enough, correct?
Hi! If I’m understanding your question correctly, you’re wondering if the wording “seems to have contributed to” precludes the possibility of conditional reasoning. It does signal uncertainty, but it doesn’t inherently preclude conditional reasoning. Even if something “seems to have contributed”, we can still evaluate whether it was treated as necessary (required for the result) or sufficient (guaranteeing the result).
It’s worth noting that the issue with the trustee’s argument isn’t about the degree of certainty in the phrase. Instead, it lies in failing to consider whether the exhibit might have attracted enough visitors to keep the museum open even without the media coverage, which is what answer D gets at.
Let me know if I misunderstood your question, or if you want any further clarifications!