Logical Reasoning

PT105 · S1 · Q21 Two doctrines have been greatly

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

Two doctrines have been greatly influential in this century.

Conclusion

Both doctrines are mistaken. i.e., The explanation of any historical event does not need to appeal to economic factors. Not all historical events can be accounted for psychologically.

Evidence

Some events were due both to economic forces and to the psychology of the major participants.

Evaluate

This is like if we read an argument that said: Luigi thinks that all pasta dishes should have salt in them. Mario says all pasta dishes should have garlic in them. Both of them are wrong, however. Certainly there are some pasta dishes that would benefit from both salt and garlic.

Our objection would be,

Similarly, this author was assuming that the two doctrines are mutually exclusive, since he thinks he's proving them wrong by finding a case where they overlap.

Goal

It's hard to predict what wording they'll use for the idea of, "he's assuming they're mutually exclusive doctrines".

It might sound like our author is assuming, (and vice versa)

or,

21.

The argument depends on assuming which one of the following?

Correct
The first doctrine precludes any
Why this is right
We could have written a similarly correct answer about the second doctrine, that it "precludes any non-psychological factors in explanations of historical events". It's just getting at the idea that this author was assuming the doctrines were mutually exclusive. If we negated this answer, it would be saying this objection: "Yo, author --- the first doctrine allows for noneconomic factors to also be factors in explanations of historical events. It's saying you must always appeal to economic factors, but it's not saying you can only appeal to economic factors. Hence the fact that there are events that were due to economic and psychological stuff doesn't do anything to weaken the validity of this doctrine."
Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
45% picked this
The second doctrine places importance
Too Strong: only
The text tells us that the second doctrine attempts to account psychologically for all events, especially in terms of early childhood experience. But if I say that "Harvard cares especially about your LSAT score", that doesn't mean "Harvard's admission committee places important only on your LSAT score".
7% picked this
Historical events are influenced as
Too Strong: perfectly equal
The author doesn't have to assume that the influence of economic / psychological factors is perfectly in balance, as this answer choice is saying. He's only saying that some events are influenced by both, not that the sum total of historical events are influenced equivalently by both.
16% picked this
One is likely to find
Out of Scope
Out of Scope: have been proposed Too Strong: any The argument was talking about two influential doctrines, what they hold or what they've attempted to do in relation to explaining historical events. This answer is saying that for every single historical event every, you're likely to find both an economic and a psychological explanation that's already been proposed. That's an extreme idea that suggests that both doctrines have already attempted to explain most historical events. There are a lot of historical events in history. We have no reason to believe the author thinks that both of these schools of thought have already proposed explanations for the majority of them. In fact, the author's argument rests on the idea of certain events that were due to both economic and psychological factors, and she doesn't even need to assume for those events that economic and psychological explanations have been proposed. The notion of whether proposed explanations already exist is not in this conversation. The author is only speaking to the appropriateness of there being an explanation of this type or that type (not whether it's already been proposed).
13% picked this
Appeals to both economic and
Too Strong: needed / any
The author hasn't committed to the very extreme notion that a proper understanding of every single historical event ever requires both economic and psychological dimensions to it. She is only saying that "there have been (at least some) events whose proper understanding would require acknowledgment of both economic and psychological factors".
19% 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