Logical Reasoning

PT128 · S2 · Q18 Critic: The contemporary novel is

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

Critic: The contemporary novel is incapable of making important new contributions.

Conclusion

The contemporary novel is incapable of making important new contributions.

Evidence (the evidence is clear)

Contemporary psychological novels have been failures. Contemporary action novels lack social significance. Contemporary romance novels are stale and formulaic.

Evaluate

There are missing link assumptions being made here: "if failure, can't make important new contribution"

But those missing link assumptions would be pretty impossible to replicate on an analogous parallel flaw. So we should probably think instead about the fact that this argument's conclusion is about all contemporary novels, whereas the evidence only deals with psychological, action, and romance.

Are those the only three types of contemporary novels?

Goal

Let's look for a broad conclusion: All X's are Y

Then let's look for premises that deal with subtypes of X, but not necessarily all subtypes. And they should be saying things that aren't necessarily revealing in terms of whether or not that qualifies as Y. The evidence is clear. Blue X's are A. Red X's are B. Green X's are C.

18.

The flawed reasoning in the critic's argument is most similar to that in which one of the following?

  1. Correct

    Since no government has been

    Why this is right

    This might not seem super appealing or relevant on a first pass, but the conclusion is a strong broad statement about all governments. The evidence does not match the original in terms of discussing sub-genres of government. Instead, the matching flaw is the missing link between what the evidence says something was incapable of doing and what the conclusion says something is incapable of doing. ORIGINAL They haven't had any social significance or broken the formula ... thus, they are incapable of making an important new contribution. OBJECTION Is "social significance / breaking the formula" the only way to make an important new contribution? THIS ANSWER They haven't been able to closely regulate employment or inflation ... thus, they are incapable of improving the nation's economy. OBJECTION Is "closely regulating employment or inflation" the only ways to improve an economy? This answer would only win, for me, after all the others lose.

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

    77% picked this

  2. Because there has been substantial

    Bad Conclusion Match

    The conclusion is not a harshly worded claim about some broad type of thing. The contemporary novel is incapable of doing X is a poor match for It's only a matter of time before we invent X

    2% picked this

  3. The essayist Macaulay was as

    Bad Conclusion Match

    The conclusion is not definitive in its wording the way the original conclusion was. The contemporary novel is incapable of doing X is a poor match for Today's popular writers are likely to be forgotten in the future. Also the relationship between evidence and conclusion is more of a, "Because it was true in the past, it will be true in the future" vibe. In the original argument, it was, "Because these things failed to do X, they are incapable of doing Y."

    10% picked this

  4. This politician has not made

    Bad Conclusion Match

    The conclusion is not a harshly worded claim about some broad type of thing. The contemporary novel is incapable of doing X is a poor match for This politician must not think the problem is important Our objection to this argument would be more like, "You can't assume that causal explanation for why the politician hasn't made proposals. She might think the problem is important but have failed to make proposals for some different reason." Our objection the original argument was, "Just because they've failed to do one specific thing, how does that prove that they're incapable of doing anything belonging to this broader category?"

    5% picked this

  5. In international commerce, the corporations

    Weak Objection Match

    This conclusion feels pretty on point. It's saying that a broad category of things (small corporations) is incapable of doing something (competing at the international level). Does the evidence say, "After all, small corporations can't do X / can't do Y"? Not quite. It indirectly says, "After all, small corporations are not best suited for success". Not only does the evidence match more weakly, since the evidence doesn't even directly mention small corporations, but it feels like our objection here would sound more like "Just because they're not best suited doesn't mean they can't compete. Sometimes the underdog still makes it competitive." Our objection in the original argument and correct answer was more like, "Just because they can't do X doesn't mean they can't do Y. Aren't there other ways of doing Y, besides just X?"

    6% 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