Logical Reasoning

PT109 · S4 · Q4 John’s statements commit him to

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

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

Statements

- A great writer doesn't need any diversity in subject matter - A great writer must have the ability to explore a particular theme deeply

Evaluate

My hunch is that since John spelled out two things about what great writers need / don't need, the answer is probably testing the idea that one does not imply the other.

If I say Paul doesn't need A, he needs B

then I'm assuming that B doesn't require A.

So if John has said that great art doesn't need diversity, it needs to explore a theme deeply, he would be assuming that .

Goal

Pick anything derivable from either of John's two statements about great writers or derivable by combining them.

4.

John's statements commit him to which one of the following positions?

  1. Correct

    Even if the subject matter

    Why this is right

    This is a correct application of John's first rule about great writers: they don't need varied subject matter. If I say "getting accepted to Harvard law does not require a 170+ on LSAT", then I am committed to believing that "Even if Favilla only scored a 160, she should not thereby be excluded from being considered for acceptance to Harvard". The language of the answer isn't saying that Favilla should be considered a great writer; it's just saying that "lacking diversity in subject matter does not disqualify her from being considered a great writer".

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

    70% picked this

  2. Even if Favilla cannot explore

    Contradicted

    John is committed to believing that if you can't explore a theme deeply, then you're not a great writer.

    1% picked this

  3. If Favilla has explored some

    Illegal Reversal

    John said "if great writer, then explores theme deeply" Great writer --requires--> explore theme deeply He hasn't committed himself to this backwards reading of that conditional: if F has explored theme deeply → great writer

    27% picked this

  4. If the subject matter in

    Wrong Trigger

    The only thing John said that would allow one to prove that someone is not a great writer is if they "do not have the ability to explore a theme deeply". He didn't give us any rule that said, diverse subject matter → not great writer He just said that you don't need to have diverse subject matter to be a great writer, not that having diverse subject matter prevents you from being a great writer.

    1% picked this

  5. If Favilla’s writings show no

    Out of Scope: style

    John didn't talk about style at all. The only ammunition he gave us for judging that someone is not a great writer is if we can establish that they "do not have the ability to explore a theme deeply".

    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.

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