Logical Reasoning

PT117 · S3 · Q1 Editorial: The structure of the

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

Editorial: The structure of the present school calendar was established to satisfy the requirements of early-twentieth-century agricultural life.

Conclusion (Therefore)

Long breaks should be removed from the school calendar.

Evidence

Long breaks were originally put in the school calendar so that children could have long breaks during which they could stay home and help with the harvest.

But most of the citizens are no longer engaged in agricultural lives, so we can make changes that better serve the children.

Evaluate

From a Missing Link perspective, the author is assuming that "removing long breaks from the school calendar" would be a change that "serves the interests of children".

We could also try to think of possible Objections. How could we accept the evidence but still argue that, ?

- the teachers really need these breaks; they're exhausted - even though only a minority of kids are on farms, we still have to build a schedule that can accommodate all of them - getting rid of the long breaks would be destructive to many industries, like summer camps, that depend on students being out of school

The argument would be assuming - teachers don't need a long break - we don't have to accommodate the farm kids - this wouldn't destroy lots of summer-themed industries

Goal

Look for an answer linking premise language to conclusion language, or look for an answer that, if negated, would turn into an objection and help us argue that we shouldn't get rid of these long breaks.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the editorial's argument depends?

During long breaks children have
Out of Scope: Children Forgetting
This answer would strengthen, if true, because it gives another reason why getting rid of long breaks could be good. But the author doesn't need this to be true. If we negate this and say, "children don't have a tendency to forget what they've learned", that doesn't hurt the argument. The author would just say, "Sure. I never said we should get rid of long breaks because kids were forgetting what they've learned. I said get rid of it because most of them don't need to run home to the farm."
3% picked this
Children of farmers need to
Weakens
This was one of our objections -- hey, what's going to happen to those kids that do still need to get home to the farm? Authors never assume something that hurts their argument. If this said, "Children of farmers do not any longer need the long breaks", that would be a decent answer.
1% picked this
Long breaks in the school
Out of Scope
Out of Scope: Average Vacations Too Strong: No Longer This is a reasonable suggestion, but it's not necessary for the author to have this opinion. She's just telling us we should remove long breaks. She hasn't said anything about what we should replace it with. So we can't assume that she holds this specific position in which the maximum of length of any new break is no longer than the average of all workers' vacations.
2% picked this
A change in the present
Too Strong: Serves Interests
The author is selling us this new change on the basis that it would serve the interests of the majority of kids that do not live an agricultural life. She's not necessarily assuming that this plan will be better for farm kids or agricultural life, in general. If the effects of this plan were neutral to agricultural life, her argument would still work. Even if the effect of this plan were negative, she could potentially argue that it's worth inconveniencing agricultural life for the sake of the majority of children.
3% picked this
Correct
A school calendar made up
Why this is right
This is linking the language from right before the Therefore to language right after it. When I say, "Sheila likes spicy foods. Thus, she should go to Jose's Tacos", we know the argument is assuming that Jose's Tacos has some spicy food. Here they said, "We can make changes that serve the interests of children. Therefore, long calendar breaks should be removed". That indicates that the author assumes that removing long calendar breaks would serve the interests of children. If we negated this, it would sound like an Objection (as every correct answer on Necessary Assumption should): Hey, author --- a school calendar without long breaks does not serve the interests of children better than a calendar with long breaks.
Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
92% 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