LSAT 146 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q2

LR Question 2 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Successful stand-up comedians are able to keep the…

QUESTION TYPE: Complete the Argument

CONCLUSION: University lecturers could achieve their goals through humor [predicted conclusion]

REASONING: Lecturers have the same goals as standup comedians. Standup comedians succeed at these goals using humor.

ANALYSIS: This is a fairly simple structure. We have two groups with the same goal. We know how one of the two groups achieves this goal: the comedians use humor. So, presumably, university professors could also use humor to achieve their goals.

On complete the argument questions, you should be able to predict the answer before going to the answer choices. It flows from the logic of what was said.

___________

1. This doesn’t follow: sharing goals doesn’t mean skillsets are the same. College professors might be able to achieve their goals using different skills.
2. CORRECT. This matches the logic of the argument. See the analysis above.
3. This is a trap. We know humor is a possible way to achieve the goals. But the argument didn’t say that it’s the only way. Some other skill might also hold students’ attention for hours and help them remember the points made.
4. This answer is insane. Effectively it’s saying “presumably, every super long lecture will keep an audience’s attention”.
    
   Rubbish. Keeping people’s attention is hard. The argument didn’t imply otherwise.
5. The argument didn’t say what anyone should do. The LSAT keeps a strict division between facts and morals. We can only conclude that professors could keep attention through humor. Further, the distinction of “even the most serious topics” isn’t in the stimulus. Maybe even comedians speak seriously about the most solemn topics.