Logical Reasoning

PT103 · S2 · Q8 Sociologist: The welfare state

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Sociologist: The welfare state cannot be successfully implemented because it rests on the assumption that human beings are unselfish—a seemingly false assumption.

Conclusion

The welfare state cannot be successfully implemented.

Intermediate Conclusion

It rests on the seemingly false assumption that human beings are unselfish.

Evidence

The welfare state is only feasible if wage earners are prepared to have the money they earn used to help others in greater need, which requires an unselfish attitude. But people innately seek their own well-being, especially if the interest of someone else threatens it.

Evaluate

Whenever we do Main Conclusion (and to a lesser extent Role) questions, we prime our brains before reading the paragraph with a crucial reminder:

- listen for the Conclusion to arrive before the Evidence!

In the vast majority of Main Conclusion questions, the paragraph ends with supporting ideas, not with the main conclusion. The two most common places to find the conclusion on a Main Conclusion question?

1. some sort of Rebuttal type claim (e.g. "however, they're wrong") 2. the first sentence

Because the first sentence sounds somewhat like an opinion --- bah, you'll never be able to pull off the welfare state! -- and because that opinion isn't being attributed to someone else, we start to think,

If we read the first sentence, and then ask ourselves , everything that follows sounds like the author's defense of that position.

Goal

We want to find a match for the first sentence. It's unclear to me whether they'll just give us the entire first sentence (including the because clause that is technically support for the first clause), or whether they'll just give us the first clause, which leads up to the because.

I'm fine with either. They aren't going to offer us both.

8.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main conclusion of the sociologist's argument?

  1. Correct

    The welfare state will not

    Why this is right

    Yes, this matches the meaning of the first clause, "the welfare state cannot be successfully implemented", which was our conclusion.

    Skill tested: Main Conclusion · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    73% picked this

  2. The welfare state unfairly asks

    Out of Scope: unfairly Wrong Role

    This claim resembles one of the premises, not the conclusion. Additionally, the author never said it was "unfair" to use your money to help those in greater need.

    1% picked this

  3. The assumption that human beings

    Wrong Role

    This could be called an Intermediate Conclusion, but we know it's not the main conclusion because it's prefaced by because, which always indicates a Supporting Role. F.A.B.S. = the four main Support Indicators for after all because since

    18% picked this

  4. The interests of the less

    Last Claim Trap

    A lot of students just pick the final claim whenever they're asked what the Conclusion is, so Main Conclusion questions almost always have a trap answer mimicking the final claim of the paragraph. We can tell this isn't the Conclusion because it fails the Support Test: why should we believe that "the interests of the less fortunate impinge on the interests of others? The author told us that people innately seek their own well-being even more when the interests of less fortunate people are impinging on them, but he gave no evidence that the interests of the less fortunate are, in actuality, impinging on them currently.

    1% picked this

  5. The welfare state relies on

    Trap

    Never Stated / Inference Out of Scope: generosity This sounds nothing like the first claim of the paragraph. Main Conclusion correct answers are supposed to be reproducing the meaning of one of the explicit claims. The author never said anything that sounds like "the welfare state relies on generosity". We can infer that the welfare state relies on wage earners' willingness to have their hard-earned funds used to help other in greater need, but we never talked about "generosity", and we never supported this claim. why should we believe that the welfare state requires wage earners' giving their hard-earned funds to help others in greater need? Who said it has to be wage earners? Could we raise enough revenue for those in need from people that collect income from passive sources like stocks / bonds / trusts? The author never supported the claim that a welfare state requires the buy-in of wage earners. He just said it.

    7% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free