QUESTION TEXT: If people refrained from being impolite to one…
QUESTION TYPE: Role in Argument
CONCLUSION: The government shouldn’t pass laws requiring politeness.
REASONING: Politeness is good, but enforcing politeness laws would cause more problems than impoliteness does now.
ANALYSIS: This question is asking about the role played by the second sentence. That sentence starts with “but”. That’s the argument’s conclusion: society would be worse if there were politeness laws.
“But” often introduces a conclusion. The word shows that the author disagrees with the first sentence, and it presents the second sentence as their opinion.
The third sentence shows a reason why society wouldn’t be better off with politeness laws. This supports the second sentence.
It’s not possible to “explain” a lot of the wrong answers. They simply fail to correspond to the argument. Instead I’ve given examples of what an argument matching those answers would look like.
- CORRECT. See the analysis above. The word “but” in this case indicates that the second sentence is the conclusion.
- The argument doesn’t generalize. An example of a generalization: “Americans tend to be polite.”
- If this answer were true, the sentence in question would be support for an intermediate conclusion. There isn’t even an intermediate conclusion in the argument.
- There isn’t a generalization in the argument.
Example of answer: Americans are extremely nice. For instance I once visited America and a family I didn’t know invited me for dinner.
(The second sentence is the illustration)
- This didn’t happen at all.
Example of answer: Americans are incredibly polite. They always say please and thank you and are never rude. I conclude that this is due to the vast openness of the country.
(The second sentence is the one describing a phenomenon.)
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly