Logical Reasoning

PT104 · S1 · Q17 The stable functioning of a society

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

Start practicing free

The stable functioning of a society depends upon the relatively long-term stability of the goals of its citizens.

Conclusion

The stable functioning of a society depends upon the relatively long-term stability of the goals of its citizens.

Evidence (This is clear from the fact that)

If a most individuals don't have a predictable or enduring set of aspirations, it will be impossible for a legislature to craft laws that augment their satisfaction, and it should be obvious that a society is stable only if its laws tend to increase the happiness of its citizens.

Evaluate

This paragraph is made to be very hard to read. Whenever we do Role and Main Conclusion, though, we know that there's an 80% or better chance that we'll hear the Conclusion before we hear its Supporting idea(s).

So we always read the paragraph on Role and Main Conclusion with a special ear for conclusions in the first sentence. This first sentence doesn't sound like an opinion, so we wouldn't initially know it was the conclusion.

But then the second sentence tells us it was the conclusion, by indicating that now we are trying to support that claim.

This suspect is guilty. This is clear from the fact that he had a motive and that his fingerprints are on the murder weapon.

The verdict is clear from the facts of the evidence. The conclusion is clear from the facts of the evidence.

The other keyword that's useful here is 'and', which almost always joins two Premises.

So using keywords and knowing the usual tendency of Role and Main Conclusion to put the Conclusion earlier than the Supporting idea(s) are both very useful when it comes to sorting out this paragraph.

In terms of making it more conversational, the first sentence is saying,

After all, a government won't be able to write policy in ways that help citizens if most citizens are frequently shifting in terms of what goals they aspire to. And if If a society's laws are helping citizens, then obviously society won't be stable.

Goal

They're asking us about the third claim, which is one of the two Premises.

So we'll look for stuff like premise evidence partial support (because there's more than one premise)

17.

The claim that a society is stable only if its laws tend to increase the happiness of its citizens plays which one of the following roles in the argument?

  1. It is the conclusion of

    Wrong Role

    The first sentence is the conclusion. On Role questions, the final claim is Support at least 80% of the time.

    10% picked this

  2. Correct

    It helps to support the

    Why this is right

    This is saying Premise, a claim that helps to support the conclusion.

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

    66% picked this

  3. It is a claim that

    Wrong Role

    This is saying our claim stands in the way of the conclusion. We have to strike it down to get to our conclusion. That's no way to talk about a Premise! A Premise is our bridge, our path to the conclusion. It's not a brick wall impeding our path.

    1% picked this

  4. It is a consequence of

    Not a Thing

    This is not really anything we'd ever see. A logical consequence of a claim or a plan is something we'd sometimes see. For example, if I think that "Michael Jordan, who played in the 20th century, is the best basketball player ever", then a consequence of that view is that "the best basketball player did not play in the 19th century". A consequence / implication / inference of an argument would probably mean "something that can be inferred from the conclusion, assuming it's true". But when have you ever seen an argument on LSAT present evidence, present a conclusion, and then also present a further logical implication of that conclusion? If they did that, then we would just be calling the first conclusion an Intermediate Conclusion and the consequence of that conclusion would be the Main Conclusion. In short, this answer is gibberish.

    3% picked this

  5. It is used to illustrate

    Wrong Role

    This last claim isn't used to illustrate a general principle. It is a general principle that the argument presupposes. An illustration of a principle is a specific example of that principle. The main conclusion is a general principle, but an illustration of that would sound like, "Consider the society of Atlantis. The citizens of Atlantis kept changing their ideas about the goals of life, and thus their society was not able to function in a stable manner."

    20% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

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

Save and practice this skill
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