Logical Reasoning

PT112 · S4 · Q9 Manuscripts written by first-time

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

Manuscripts written by first-time authors generally do not get serious attention by publishers except when these authors happen to be celebrities.

Evidence (for)

Most "manuscripts by first-time authors who aren't celebrities" do not get serious attention by publishers.

My manuscript is by a first-time author who isn't a celebrity.

Conclusion

My manuscript is unlikely to be taken seriously.

Evaluate

This is a valid argument that plays off the logic of Most statements. If we know that Sally is A, and that "Most A's are B", we can infer that Sally is probably B.

"generally, usually, tends to, typically" all mean Most of the time, more than 50% of the time.

When we see "unless / except / without / until", we think "if-not". Sometimes we'll see a conditional or most claim with an unless at the end. We can throw the negated version into the trigger (that's what "if-not" means anyway).

For example, if we're given "If X then Y, unless Z", then we would get, if X and not-Z, then Y

If we're given "X's are generally Y, unless they're Z", then we get, Most things that are X and not-Z are Y

Goal

Let's look for an argument structured like this:

Prem 1: Most A's are B. Prem 2: X is A. Conc: X is likely B.

9.

The structure of which one of the following arguments is most similar to the structure of the argument above?

  1. Challengers generally do not win

    Bad Conclusion Match

    The strength of this conclusion is Possible (may win). The strength of the original conclusion was Probable (unlikely to be taken seriously). That's enough to get rid of this one. Were we to bother reading the premises, we'd see another mismatch. We get our Most premise: Most "challengers who are facing an incumbent that hasn't become very unpopular" do not win elections. The next premise should be saying: Sally is a challenger facing an incumbent who hasn't become very unpopular. And then the conclusion would be saying Sally probably won't win the election.

    11% picked this

  2. Correct

    Fruit salad that contains bananas

    Why this is right

    Most A's are B Most "fruit salads that have bananas but one or fewer exotic fruits" are boring. X is A. This fruit salad has bananas and one or fewer exotic fruits. Thus, X is probably B This fruit salad is probably be boring.

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

    65% picked this

  3. Thursday’s city council meeting is

    Weak Premise Match

    This argument is slightly different from the original because the "most" premise is actually an "all", and it's historical, not present tense. The original argument was saying, "Most things with these traits do not get attention". A historical version would say, "Most things with these traits have not gotten attention". Other than that, this argument is fairly similar to the original, but that difference is enough to make this a weaker match. The other mismatch is that the original "Most" claim had an "except" qualification at the end. In our correct answer, the "Most" claim also has a qualification at the end. For this answer to have better matched, it would need to say something more like, "Traditionally, council meetings are sparely attended if zoning issues are the only ones on the agenda, unless there is free popcorn offered."

    10% picked this

  4. The bulk of an estate

    Weak Premise Match

    The original most claim was saying "Most A's are B, unless they're C" -- Most first-time manuscripts are not given serious attention, unless they're written by celebrities. That creates a complex sufficient condition: "Most first-time manuscripts that aren't by celebrities" The most claim in this answer does not have that sort of feature. It's actually saying, "Most estates give the bulk of the value to the spouse" as well as "most estates without a surviving spouse give the bulk of the value to the surviving children". We could potentially re-write the first sentence to match the structure better: most estates give the bulk of the value to the surviving children, unless the spouse is surviving. That would give us, "Most estates that don't have a surviving spouse give the bulk of the value to the surviving children". If we thought of it that way, the argument is actually very similar, but the fact that we'd have to re-write it a bit to make it line up better highlights why the correct answer is more similar.

    9% picked this

  5. Normally about 40 percent of

    Bad Conclusion Match

    The strength of this conclusion is Certain (was not atypically mild). The strength of the original conclusion was Probable (unlikely to be taken seriously). That's enough to get rid of this one. Were we to bother reading the premises, we'd see another mismatch. We get our Most premise: Most "winters that are not extremely mild" kill off 40% of the deer population. The next premise should be saying: This winter was not extremely mild. And then the conclusion would be saying So 40% of the deer population likely died.

    5% 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