Logical Reasoning

PT109 · S4 · Q3 Muriel: I admire Favilla’s novels

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

Muriel: I admire Favilla’s novels, but she does not deserve to be considered great writer.

Muriel's 1st Claim

I admire Favilla's novels. does John say he doesn't admire them?

No, he makes no reference to Favilla at all.

Muriel's 2nd Claim

Favilla does not deserve to be considered a great writer. does John say she should be considered great?

No, he makes no reference to Favilla at all.

Muriel's 3rd Claim

Her style is distinctive does John say it isn't distinctive?

No, he makes no reference to Favilla at all.

Muriel's 4th Claim

Her subject matter is not varied enough. does John say it is varied enough?

No, he makes no reference to Favilla at all.

Evaluate

Since John didn't disagree with any of Muriel's explicit claims (and since John isn't talking about Favilla at all), we can tell that John must be objecting to something more implied or assumed.

In fact, John explicitly says that he's objecting to the "criterion" that Muriel is using.

She is saying, .

He says, .

Goal

Let's look for something like, whether or not diversity in subject matter is a necessary criterion for considering someone is a great writer.

3.

Which one of the following is a point at issue between Muriel and John?

  1. whether Favilla has treated a

    No Comment from Person 2

    John made no specific comments about Favilla, so we'll be able to quickly get rid of any answer dealing specifically with Favilla.

    1% picked this

  2. whether Favilla should be considered

    No Support from Either

    Neither person is arguing that Favilla should be considered great.

    8% picked this

  3. Correct

    whether treating a variety of

    Why this is right

    Muriel would Agree with this, since she is arguing that "since Muriel's subject matter is simply not varied enough, she doesn't deserve to be considered a great writer". ~subject matter varied → ~great writer great writer → subject matter varied We can read this contrapositive like "being a great writer requires have varied subject matter", which means the same as "varied subject matter" is a prerequisite. John, meanwhile, would DISAGREE with this answer choice, since he says that "a great writer does not need any diversity in subject matter". So John explicitly disagrees with this. Muriel implicitly agrees with this, because this is the assumption that underlies her argument.

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

    90% picked this

  4. whether the number of novels

    No Support from Either

    Neither person mentioned the quantity of novels a writer has written, so we couldn't derive that either person has supported this claim.

    0% picked this

  5. whether there are many novelists

    Out of Scope

    Out of Scope: wrongly considered great No Support from Either Neither party discusses novelists who are wrongly considered to be great. Muriel mentions one writer whom shouldn't be considered great (in Muriel's view). No one ever said Favilla is considered great, so she doesn't count as a novelists who "is considered great but does not deserve to be". Even if she did, this answer is about many novelists being undeservedly called "great", not about just one of them. John doesn't come close to talking about any actual writers being great / not great / considered great.

    0% 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