LR Question 7 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Talbert: Chess is beneficial for school-age children…
QUESTION TYPE: Point at Issue
ARGUMENTS: Talbert argues that chess is good for schoolchildren. It’s fun and encourages good, mature thinking habits.
Sklar thinks chess should not be taught, regardless of its benefits to children. Chess has no social value. Teaching chess distracts students from science, and science does have social value.
ANALYSIS: You must be precise. Sklar does not say that chess is useless for children. Sklar’s objection is to teaching chess, in school.
Remember, you’re looking for something the authors disagree about. There can’t be disagreement unless both authors have an opinion on the answer.
All of the wrong answers are things that at least one author has no opinion about.
___________
- Sklar didn’t say whether chess benefits children. Her objection was to teaching chess.
- Sklar didn’t even talk about what activities promote mental maturity. So the two speakers can’t disagree on this.
- Talbert doesn’t talk about the social value of chess, and Talbert doesn’t even mention science. Talbert only has an opinion about the value of chess, to children.
- CORRECT. This is a tricky answer. We know Sklar thinks chess should not be taught. But Talbert never mentions teaching. How do we know what he thinks?
Sklar’s first sentence provides the key. Sklar objects to teaching chess to children. It makes no sense for Sklar to say this unless Talbert had argued in favor of teaching chess to children.
The LSAT requires you to apply the principle of charity. You should assume reasonable interpretations, rather than absurd ones. It’s reasonable to assume that Talbert had indicated he was proposing teaching. Otherwise, Sklar’s reply would be insane. Remember also that you’re just looking for the answer with the strongest support. It needn’t be absolute. - Neither author said that chess and science are necessary conditions for mental maturity.
More Resources for Point at Issue Questions
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Point at Issue questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers point at issue questions.
Thanks for this explanation, but I still don’t understand why (A) is wrong.
If Sklar believed chess promoted mental maturity, wouldn’t it be inconsistent for him to say that chess has no societal value? Because mental maturity has societal value.
Thoughts?
It’s unclear whether Sklar believes that mental maturity has societal value — or at least, he might have a different definition of societal value, as he does say outright that chess is diverting attention away from something that does have societal value, namely, science.
Although I would normally say that mental maturity having a societal value is a common sense assumption, (and so, if Sklar says that chess has no societal value, then he’s also saying it doesn’t promote mental maturity), (E) is an answer choice that doesn’t require the same kind of tacit assumption-making. It’s a better answer choice because Tabler states explicitly that chess is beneficial for children, and Sklar is clear that he objects to teaching chess to children.