Logical Reasoning

PT128 · S3 · Q24 Historian: The revolutionary party has

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

Historian: The revolutionary party has been accused of having many overambitious goals and of having caused great suffering.

Conclusion (So)

It is clear that the revolutionary party was not overambitious and caused no suffering.

Evidence

Most of the revolutionary party's goals were quickly achieved and the party didn't have enough power to cause the suffering the critics claim it caused.

Evaluate

The conclusion actually makes two claims, so we should separately analyze each's validity.

Given that ... the party quickly achieved most of its goals, Do we have to accept that ... the party was not overambitious?

No, we could say they were still overambitious. Maybe the remaining un-achieved goals are hopeless, pie-in-the-sky fantasies that are overambitious.

Given that ... the party didn't have enough power to cause the suffering the critics claim it caused, Do we have to accept that ... the party caused no suffering?

Heck no. Maybe the critics claimed that the party caused 10 megatons of suffering, whereas the party in really only caused 3 megatons of suffering. There's a wide range between "less than critics accuse them of" and "nothing".

Goal

Look for an answer choice saying, .

Or look for one saying,

24.

The reasoning in the historian's argument is flawed because the argument

  1. gives mutually inconsistent responses to

    Not Self-Contradiction

    This refers to one of the 10 famous flaws, Internal Contradiction, in which one thing the author says contradicts something else they say (that's what "mutually inconsistent" means). This is almost never the correct answer, because authors almost never contradict themselves. This author definitely did not contradict herself.

    22% picked this

  2. Correct

    fails to establish that the

    Why this is right

    This is a really weird correct answer because it's technically saying, "The author assumed one of the claims in the conclusion". She definitely never proved that the revolutionary party caused no suffering. She only established that they caused less suffering than critics claim. So by concluding that the party "caused no suffering", she is making an unfounded claim. Hence, we can call her out on it as a flaw.

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

    52% picked this

  3. fails to establish that any

    Opposite, if anything: underestimated

    Because the answer starts with takes for granted / presumes / fails to establish, we can just ask ourselves, "Did the author need to assume this?" Did she need to assume that some of the party's critics underestimated the party's power? No, if anything the paragraph makes it sound like critics overestimated the party's power. The critics think that the party did great suffering, and the author says "No, they weren't that powerful." So the author is somewhat implying that the critics overestimate the power of the party. At no point does she need it to be true that some of the critics underestimated the party's power.

    3% picked this

  4. provides no evidence that the

    Contradicted: provides no evidence

    The author does provide some evidence that the party's goals were not overambitious: most of the party's goals were quickly achieved. If a goal is quickly achieved, it suggests that the goal was realistic, not overambitious.

    22% picked this

  5. fails to consider other major

    Irrelevant Objection

    Since the answer starts with fails to consider / overlooks the possibility, we can treat it like Weaken. Can we hurt this argument by saying, "Hey, author -- there are other major criticisms of the party besides overambitious goals and causing great suffering." Of course not. This author is only concerned with overambitious goals and suffering.

    1% 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