Logical Reasoning

PT117 · S4 · Q24 Some people have maintained that

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

Some people have maintained that private ownership of the means of production ultimately destroys any society that sanctions it.

Conclusion (implied)

Private ownership of the means of production is not going to ultimately destroy a technological society, if it sanctions it.

Intermediate Conclusion

If the means of production become public property, that will actually endanger the survival of a technologically advanced society.

Evidence (Since)

Only private ownership of the means of production permits individuals to test new technologies without the majority's consent.

Evaluate

Whenever we read Role or Main Conclusion arguments, we prime our brains with a reminder that the conclusion will usually be the First Sentence or a Rebuttal.

This paragraph begins with an attribution: "Some people have maintained". We would anticipate that the author will disagree, starting with some pivot word like But, Yet, However.

Instead, the author initially concedes a point: "This may be true [in some cases]". And then she hits us with the Rebuttal Pivot: "But ... since [premise], [conclusion]."

We could say that the final claim is the main conclusion, but because of the rebuttal structure it feels fair to say that there is an implied conclusion that is disputing the accuracy of the attributed claim in the first sentence.

Goal

We're being asked about the first claim, which plays an Opposing role, as the entire argument exists to partially rebut this claim.

The author concedes that the claim may be partially true when it comes to less advanced societies, but she's implicitly arguing that it's not true when it comes to technologically advanced societies.

24.

The proposition that private ownership of the means of production ultimately destroys any society that sanctions it plays which one of the following roles in the argument above?

  1. It is a generalization that

    Contradicted

    The author concedes in the 2nd sentence that this generalization is more applicable to less technologically advanced societies. "This may be true of them, but [it's not true of technologically advanced societies]."

    7% picked this

  2. It is a hypothesis for

    Out of Scope: widespread acceptance

    It's never stated that this claim is widely accepted, nor is the argument ever trying to explain to us why this claim is widely accepted. It's only attributed as the belief of some people. And instead of the author trying to offer an explanation for why some people accept this belief, she is arguing that this belief might apply to technologically primitive societies but not to technologically advanced ones.

    2% picked this

  3. Correct

    It is a general hypothesis

    Why this is right

    This answer reflects the concession that this opening claim may apply to technologically primitive societies (who must share their economic resources to survive) but does not apply to technologically advanced societies (who apparently need to be able to test new technologies without the majority's consent). It's certainly a brutal answer because it's making us add in some assumptions, but it's essentially just saying this: The first claim is a general cause/effect claim that the author is saying is inapplicable to societies that are more like "technologically advanced" than "less technologically advanced". They're just swapping out those more obvious labels for the descriptive buzzphrases the argument provided for each type of society.

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

    76% picked this

  4. It is a contention about

    Too Strong: any

    The author never claimed anything is incompatible with the needs of any society. The author is saying that public ownership of means of production is threatening to one type of society (technologically advanced ones).

    6% picked this

  5. It is a generalization about

    Too Strong

    Too Strong: is true Illegal Negation Wrong Role: needs to convey Opposing The author was arguing that this generalization is not true for societies that need to test new technologies without the majority's consent impeding that process. This answer is giving us the negation of that, saying that this generalization is true for societies that don't have to worry about the majority impeding new technology. Even if we equated this concept of "don't have to worry about majority impeding new technology" with "less technologically advanced society", we couldn't say that our author ever argued that the first sentence is true for those societies. She said the first sentence "may be true" as a polite, noncommittal concession. The author's purpose is to rebut this first claim, not to agree with it, so we wouldn't call the role of the first claim is to provide a generalization that the author will argue is true.

    8% 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