Logical Reasoning

PT118 · S3 · Q18 The tendency toward overspecialization in

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

The tendency toward overspecialization in the study of artifacts is unfortunate.

Conclusion

It's unfortunate how scholars studying artifacts tend to overspecialize nowadays (it'd be better if they had a broader range of expertise).

Evidence

Their understanding of whatever art period they're studying could be enhanced by studying earlier art that influenced it.

Evaluate

When we're trying to extract an implicit principle, we're sort of doing the upfront work of Parallel reasoning, except we wouldn't usually be diagramming anything, just trying to think of the general essence without referencing the specific topic.

The passage is saying that focusing too much on one thing can lead to a deficient understanding of it. You could potentially understand that thing better by also focusing on some of its influential precursors.

Goal

I'd probably be looking for something like,

18.

Of the following, which one most closely conforms to the principle that the passage as a whole illustrates?

  1. To understand completely the major

    Bad Evidence Match (before vs. after)

    We wanted something like, "to understand X, you need to also understand the earlier stuff that influenced X." This is saying "to understand X, you need to understand the repercussions of X, the stuff that X causes." This is focusing on what comes AFTER the thing we're studying, on how the thing we're studying affects other stuff. The original was focusing on what came BEFORE the thing we're studying, on how that earlier stuff affects what we're studying.

    2% picked this

  2. To understand fully the historical

    Weaker Evidence Match (similar vs. causal)

    We wanted something like, "to understand X, you need to also understand the earlier stuff that influenced X." This is saying "to understand X, you need to also understand the earlier stuff that is similar to X." That's probably valid advice in and of itself, but not as good a match for the original, which specifically talking about earlier things that SHAPED the thing we're studying, not just earlier things that RESEMBLE the thing we're studying.

    13% picked this

  3. To appreciate fully the French

    Weaker Evidence Match (cousins vs. parent)

    We wanted something like, "to understand X, you need to also understand X's backstory." This is saying "to understand X, you need to also understand other things that share X's backstory." The answer would be a better match if it were saying, "To fully appreciate French, you need to understand its linguistic ancestry", because that would talking about the precursors that influenced French. This isn't asking us to understand the previous generations (the parents); it's asking us to understand the current relatives (the cousins), the other languages that have a similar backstory to French.

    8% picked this

  4. To understand properly any academic

    Bad Evidence Match

    We wanted something like, "to understand X, you need to also understand the earlier stuff that influenced X." This is saying "to understand X, you need to also understand other stuff currently going on outside of X." It doesn't have anything to do with the causal precursors of X.

    1% picked this

  5. Correct

    To understand completely Aristotle’s philosophy,

    Why this is right

    We wanted something like, "to understand X, you need to also understand the earlier stuff that influenced X." This is saying "to understand Aristotle, you need to also understand the earlier stuff (Plato) that influenced Aristotle." We need to add in the common sense that if someone is your mentor, then they influence you, but that's a very reasonable connection to make.

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

    76% 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