LR Question 7 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Ethicist: Robert Gillette has argued that because a…
QUESTION TYPE: Identify The Conclusion
CONCLUSION: Gillette’s argument isn’t convincing.
REASONING: Gillette pointed out some benefits to knowing genetics. But Gillette ignores the fact that knowledge of the human genome might be harmful.
ANALYSIS: On “identify the conclusion” questions, you don’t need to consider whether the argument is good or bad. You just need to identify what the author is saying.
The author thinks Gillette is wrong. The “however, because” indicates this conclusion. What comes before the “however” is the conclusion, and what comes after “because” is the evidence.
Note that the ethicist has not said whether she thinks genetic research is a bad idea. She’s merely pointing out that Gillette’s argument is unconvincing. You can disagree with an argument without believing in the opposite conclusion.
___________
- The ethicist didn’t even say this. She may agree with Gillette that knowledge of the genetic code will cure genetic disorders.
- The fact in this answer is just evidence.
The author says this knowledge is something Gillette fails to consider, and Gillette is not persuasive because he fails to consider it. - The ethicist did not say whether we shouldn’t pursue genetic research. She just said Gillette’s conclusion is not supported.
The ethicist thinks there is an absence of evidence that genetic research is good. But that doesn’t mean she thinks there is definitive evidence that it is a bad thing. She may simply be undecided on its benefits. - Same as A. The ethicist didn’t say Gillette is wrong about genetic disorders. Maybe mapping the genome will prevent 3,000 disorders, but harm us in other ways.
- CORRECT. The “however, because” indicates this is the conclusion. If “however” is in the middle of a sentence, then whatever comes before the however is usually the conclusion.
Recap: The question begins with “Ethicist: Robert Gillette has argued that because”. It is a Identify The Conclusion question. To practice more Identify The Conclusion questions, have a look at the LSAT Questions by Type page.
More Resources for Identify the Conclusion Questions
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Identify the Conclusion questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers identify the conclusion questions.
Could you dive a bit more into why B is wrong? I’m retaking the LSAT and while using my normal strategies, this one tripped me up.
“Because” is a common reasoning indicator – it signals that what follows is the support for a claim. “However” often introduces a conclusion, though its placement can vary. Here, we saw it in the middle of the sentence so what came before is the conclusion. It would still be the conclusion if it said “However, Gillette’s argument is not persuasive [conclusion], because he fails to … [reasoning]”.
Answer B misses the point. It captures the reasoning, that genetic research might lead to more harm than good, but not the actual conclusion, which is that Gillette’s argument is unpersuasive.
One useful approach is to ask: Why is the author writing this? The author spends more than half of the stimulus talking about Gillette, so it would be odd if the main point wasn’t about him. That doesn’t make B obviously wrong (it can still look tempting), so the foolproof strategy is to look out for indicator words. “Because” is a strong clue that what follows is support, not the conclusion.
Ultimately, the argument is just the second (final) sentence. The first is background. And within that final sentence, “Gillette’s argument is not persuasive” is supported by the idea that “such knowledge might harm humans more than benefit them”. It’s not the other way around. The conclusion is always supported by the reasoning and not the other way around. Imagine if it had said “Such knowledge might harm humans more than it would benefit them, however, because Gillette’s argument is not persuasive.” That wouldn’t make much sense, or at least not convey the same meaning the author intends.
Hope that helps! Let me know if you have any other questions.
When it comes to the Main Point question, I look for the answer choice that has a conclusion part only. However, for this question’s correct answer choice (E), I would say it contains a conclusion and a premise. Even if the answer choice is formed as an argument (just like (E)), is it safe to assume that it can be a correct answer for the Main Point question?
I was able to get it right by eliminating four other choices, but assuming that one answer choice said “Gillette’s argument is unconvincing” (without the premise part), what do you think would be the most appropriate answer choice? Thank you
Don’t get too technical on main point questions. You’re just trying to answer “why are they telling me this”. E does that.
The whole premise/conclusion thing is less important than it seems. In practice, you can’t separate the argument is unconvincing from why it isn’t. The ethicist’s point isn’t just that they’re unconvinced. It’s that they’re unconvinced for a specific reason.
If this was an “identify the conclusion” question, then perhaps only the unconvincing part would be in the answer. But really, this stuff hardly matters. If this was identify the conclusion and they listed E, I would choose it.