Logical Reasoning

PT119 · S4 · Q15 Marta: There have been complaints

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

Marta: There have been complaints about the lack of recreational areas in our city.

Marta's Comments

Some people think we need more recreational areas and suggest turning the old railway land into walking trails, but there may be more productive ways of using that land.

Arthur's Response

The old railway land is perfect for walking trails! And we need more adequate recreational areas. We shouldn't dismiss this proposal without further consideration.

Evaluate

For these rare questions where they ask us about how the 2nd person interpreted the 1st person, the 2nd person has always misinterpreted something. We want to be really good listeners as the 1st person is talking so that we can call out the moment of unfairness in the 2nd person's statement.

We can even put ourselves into the role of the 1st person and think about what part of the 2nd person's comments would make us say, "Hey! I never said that."

In this case, the "Hey! I never said that" moment for Marta would be, .

Goal

We understand the misinterpretation from Marta's view. Arthur is acting like she totally dismissed the walking trail idea, but she only softly pushed back with the idea that "it may not be the best plan".

The question stem wants us to say what Arthur heard, not what Marta said. So in Arthur's mind, he heard Marta saying,

15.

Arthur's criticism suggests that he interpreted Marta to be

  1. maintaining that converting the old

    Weak Match

    While Arthur did hear something overly strong and negative, he heard "We should not convert the old railway land into walking trails. Case closed." There's nothing in this comments that make it seem like he heard, "Converting it to walking trails would be entirely unproductive."

    13% picked this

  2. favoring the development of recreational

    No Match

    Arthur didn't get the misinterpreted sense that Marta favored a different type of recreational area. He got the sense that she had totally ruled out the idea of converting the railway land into walking trails.

    9% picked this

  3. assuming that the complaints concerning

    No Match

    Arthur didn't get the misinterpreted sense that Marta thought people were crazy to complain about a lack of recreational areas. He got the sense that she had totally ruled out the idea of converting the railway land into walking trails.

    4% picked this

  4. Correct

    recommending that the proposal for

    Why this is right

    Arthur got the misinterpreted sense that Marta had totally ruled out the idea of converting the railway land into walking trails, that she had "promptly dismissed" the idea. That's why he responds by saying, "Whoa, Marta. We shouldn't just dismiss this proposal so promptly, without further consideration!"

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

    72% picked this

  5. asserting that it may not

    No Match

    Arthur didn't get the misinterpreted sense that Marta thought it was impossible to convert the old railway land into walking trails. He got the sense that she had totally ruled out the idea of converting the railway land into walking trails.

    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