Logical Reasoning

PT121 · S4 · Q15 Trustee: The recent exhibit at

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

Trustee: The recent exhibit at the art museum was extensively covered by the local media, and this coverage seems to have contributed to the record-breaking attendance it drew.

Conclusion (so)

The museum could not have remained open had it not been for the coverage from the local media.

Evidence

The museum could not have remained open if the attendance at the exhibit had been low, and the coverage from the local media contributed to the record-breaking attendance.

Evaluate

To argue against this conclusion, we're trying to think about how we can make the case that .

We have a logic rule we have to deal with -- it couldn't have remained open if the attendance at the exhibit had been low. So we'll need to argue that .

We know that the media coverage contributed to record-breaking attendance, but without media coverage would attendance have still been pretty strong?

Remember, we don't need there to be record-breaking attendance. All we need to make our case is the possibility that attendance would "not have been low".

Formally, the conclusion is trying to argue this: Without ---------------------------------> museum media closes

The evidence presented is this: Without --> less low --------> museum media attendance attendance closes

The missing link is whether .

Goal

The author never established that the local media coverage was necessary to avoid having low attendance. She's assuming that .

15.

The reasoning in the trustee's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument

  1. confuses a necessary condition for

    Not Necessary vs. Sufficient

    This is a tempting answer in the sense that this is the #1 Famous Flaw, and there is conditional logic in this argument, but the author didn't perform an illegal reversal or negation (which is what this answer is saying). Rather, the author equated "less attendance" with "low attendance". An argument committing this answer choice's flaw would sound like, "In order for the museum to stay open, it can't have low attendance at the exhibit. They didn't have low attendance at the exhibit. Thus, the museum will stay open."

    26% picked this

  2. takes for granted that no

    Out of Scope: previous exhibits

    When an answer begins takes for granted / presumes / fails to establish, we can ask ourselves whether the argument needed to assume the idea that follows. Was this author assuming that this event had more media coverage than any previous exhibit ever? Of course not. She didn't commit to any extreme idea like that. She said it was extensively covered by local media, not that it was more extensively covered than ever before.

    1% picked this

  3. takes for granted that most

    Not Assumed: most

    The word "most" is wrong on Necessary Assumption 99% of the time we see it. Did this author need it to be true that at least 51% of people who read an article about the exhibit came to see it? Would her argument be weakened if it were only 49% of people who read the article and later saw the exhibit? No her argument wouldn't be impacted, so she doesn't need to assume this idea.

    2% picked this

  4. Correct

    fails to address the possibility

    Why this is right

    When an answer begins fails to consider / overlooks the possibility, we can ask ourselves whether the argument would be weakened if that idea were true. Can we hurt this argument by saying, "Hey, author -- even without the media coverage, the exhibit still would have drawn enough visitors to present bankruptcy"? Sure! That allows us to argue against her conclusion. "You're wrong author, the museum could have remained open, even if there hadn't been coverage from the local media." This objection speaks to the gap between "less attendance" and "low attendance". It's possible that there was less attendance, but still enough attendance to avoid bankruptcy.

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

    68% picked this

  5. presupposes the very conclusion that

    Not Circular

    This answer describes one of the 10 Famous Flaws, Circular Reasoning, in which a premise restates the conclusion or requires the conclusion to be true. These answers are almost always wrong. No premise in this argument restated or required the idea that "the museum would have closed without coverage from the local media".

    3% 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