Logical Reasoning

PT115 · S4 · Q7 Jorge: You won’t be able

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

Jorge: You won’t be able to write well about the rock music of the 1960s, since you were just an infant then.

Jorge's 1st claim

You won't be able to write well about the rock music of the 1960s, since you were an infant then. Does Ruth disagree? Does she argue she would be able to write well about rock in the 60s, even though she was an infant then?

Yes! First of all she says, "Your reasoning is absurd", so we know that she objects to the conclusion drawn on the basis of the evidence (since you were an infant, can't write well).

Secondly, her final sentence is clearly pushing back against this notion?

Jorge's 2nd claim

60s rock was created by and for people who were in their teens and early 20s then. Does Ruth disagree? Does she argue that 60's rock was not created by and for people who were in their teens and early 20s at the time?

No. She doesn't speak at all to who created 60s rock or for whom 60s rock was created.

Goal

They are arguing over whether someone who wasn't in their teens / early 20s at the time can write well about 60s rock music.

Which one of the following most accurately represents what is at issue between Jorge and Ruth?

Correct
whether only those people who
Why this is right
Jorge would agree with this: "YES, only people who were in their teens or early 20s during the 60s can write well about the rock music of that period (because it was created by and for people who were in their teens / early 20s)." Ruth would disagree with this: "NO, that's crazy. Other people can also be qualified to write well about rock music from the 60s. (after all, people alive today write well about ancient Roman culture, even though they weren't alive to experience it)." We might initially worry that "whether or not you're qualified to write about X" is a different meaning from "whether or not you'd be able to write well about X". They definitely don't seem identical to me, but these answers don't have to be perfect. They just have to be the best available. If we were to ask, "Who is qualified to write about racism in 1980s America?", what would we mean by qualified? Obviously, anyone can write about it, so it doesn't just mean "are you able to write". It means something more like "are you able to understand the subject well enough to offer insight or correct perspective on it", and that's fairly synonymous with "are you able to write well about it"?
Skill tested: Agree/Disagree · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
75% picked this
whether people who were in
No Support from Either
Neither person discusses whether people in their teens / 20's at the time could have written well about 1960's rock. If we can't derive their opinions on a claim, we can't pick that answer. If we were to speculate, though, we would assume that both people would agree to this claim. Jorge seems to be suggesting that only people who were in their teens / early 20s at the time would be eligible to write well about that music, so he probably thinks there are at least some eligible people who can write well. But Ruth would presumably also agree, since her main gist is that "anyone can potentially write well about any time period, whether they were directly involved or not".
15% picked this
whether only people who are
No Support from Either
Neither person discusses an age at which people can write well about ancient cultures. The closest we get to that is Ruth saying that some living writers can write well about ancient Rome, but we have no idea what age these writers are. And we definitely have not a whisper on this subject from Jorge.
1% picked this
whether people who are not
Both Agree
Jorge's main thrust seems to be that the people who could write well about 1960's rock would be people who were in their teens / early 20s at the time. That would mean that nowadays they are around 70-80 years old. Ruth's main thrust seems to be that anyone could write well about 1960's rock music. She thinks that she is eligible, despite being only an infant in the 1960s. That means that she is probably currently around 60-70 years old. So both of them think there people who are not now in their teens / early twenties that could write well about 1960s rock.
8% picked this
whether Ruth’s ideas about the
Out of Scope
Out of Scope: appeal No Support from Either Neither person is ever discussing whether Ruth's ideas about 60's rock would / wouldn't appeal to 70-80 year old's who were in their teens / early twenties during the 1960s. We don't even know if Ruth has ideas about 1960s rock. She is only objecting to Jorge's reasoning, saying "My age wouldn't preclude me from being able to write well". She isn't saying, "The ideas I have written would appeal to people currently in their 70's."
2% 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