Logical Reasoning

PT111 · S4 · Q2 Bureaucratic mechanisms are engineered 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

Bureaucratic mechanisms are engineered to resist change.

Conclusion (thus)

It's unlikely that bureaucracies will be simplified.

Evidence

Bureaucratic mechanisms are engineered to resist change.

Evidence

Pretty short and sweet. We just have, "Premise. Thus, [despite Concession], Conclusion."

Goal

They're asking us about the first claim, which is the one premise offered for the conclusion that "it's unlikely that bureaucracies will be simplified".

2.

The claim that bureaucratic mechanisms are engineered to resist change plays which one of the following roles in the argument?

  1. Correct

    It is a premise offered

    Why this is right

    Claim 1 is our premise. It's supporting Claim 3, which is our conclusion, signified by Thus. Claim 2 is just a concession / an opposing point that the author doesn't think is enough to keep the conclusion from being true.

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

    81% picked this

  2. It is a conclusion for

    Wrong Role

    It is not a conclusion. The only conclusion is claim 3, prefaced by "Thus".

    3% picked this

  3. It is cited as evidence

    Bad Conclusion Match

    It is cited as evidence, but the conclusion doesn't say "bureaucratic systems are becoming more complex"; it says "it's unlikely that bureaucracies will get any simpler". Those don't mean the same thing. Something could stay frozen at its current level of complexity and never be simplified. That doesn't mean that it's becoming more and more complex. It's just never becoming less complex. The conclusion is saying, "It's unlikely we'll go backwards" and this answer is saying "we are constantly going forward".

    1% picked this

  4. It is used to weaken

    Opposite Role

    Our claim is used to support, not weaken. And there is no claim anywhere in the argument that bureaucracies should be simplified.

    0% picked this

  5. It is a conclusion for

    Wrong Role

    It is not a conclusion. The only conclusion is claim 3, prefaced by "Thus".

    14% 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