Logical Reasoning

PT114 · S1 · Q15 Mystery stories often feature a brilliant

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

Mystery stories often feature a brilliant detective and the detective’s dull companion.

Information

Mysteries often have a smart detective and dumb sidekick.

As clues are introduced, the dumb sidekick arrives at incorrect conclusions, whereas the smart detective uses those same clues to arrive at the correct solution.

For the author, having the dumb sidekick in the story is way to give readers a chance to solve the mystery (like the smart detective), as well as a way to throw them off the scent (since the dumb sidekick puts incorrect suggestions in the reader's mind).

Evaluate

We're looking for hidden truths we can pull out. Two or more claims with overlapping information that we can combine.

The dull companion is brought up in all three sentences. The Thus at the beginning of the last sentence seems to show a causal connection between the 2nd and 3rd sentence.

And there's a Comparison (difference) in the 2nd sentence: companion looks at the clues, wrong solution detective looks at same clues, right solution

Maybe since the last sentence is saying that the story gives the reader enough info to solve the mystery, the answer is going to be combining these ideas to say something like, .

Goal

With no clear clues, we should just head to the answers and try to find a safely worded claim that is derived by combining 2 or more ideas.

15.

Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the information above?

  1. Most mystery stories feature a

    Too Strong: most

    The first sentence only says these stories often feature a brilliant detective. Most means more than 50% of the time. Often doesn't have a precise minimum, but it can be lower than 1/2. You can say "I often go to church on Sunday", even if you'd be lying to say "I go to church on most Sundays".

    7% picked this

  2. Mystery readers often solve the

    Too Strong: readers often solve

    The information never said that any readers ever solve the mystery, only that they "have a chance to solve" it. Enough information is provided. In addition, to "often solve", it's being suggested by the paragraph that a reader would solve the mystery by just interpreting the clues more like the brilliant detective does (i.e. accurately). There's nothing suggesting that they solve the mystery simply by spotting mistakes.

    9% picked this

  3. Correct

    Some mystery stories give readers

    Why this is right

    This reconciles the 2nd and 3rd sentences, whose relationship is indicated by "Thus". 2nd: Clues are presented in the story and Thus, 3rd: the author's strategy gives readers a chance to solve the mystery The last sentence made it sound like with some of these detective stories, "the clues are there, reader. You have a chance to solve the mystery. Can you be as clever as the detective, or will we distract you with the dull companion's bad leads?" This answer basically says, "at least one mystery novel is solvable for the reader".

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

    64% picked this

  4. The actions of the brilliant

    Too Strong

    Too Strong: rarely Out of Scope: detective diverts We don't know anything about how frequently the actions of the detective do or don't divert readers from the actions of the companion. We only heard that the poor-guessing of the dull companion often diverts readers from the correct solution to the mystery.

    4% picked this

  5. The detective’s dull companion in

    Out of Scope

    Out of Scope: uncovers misleading clues Too Strong: generally We aren't given any information about who uncovers clues. We only hear that "clues are presented in the story". The author may choose to present clues a multitude of ways and possibly none of them involve the detective or the companion uncovering them. Furthermore, it was never suggested that any of these clues were inherently "misleading clues". It was just said that the companion's inaccurate guesses as to the significance of these clues diverted readers from the correct solution. The clues can't be misleading if they are also allowing the detective and reader to arrive at the correct solution.

    16% 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