Logical Reasoning

PT13 · S2 · Q8 Various mid-fourteenth-century European

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

Various mid-fourteenth-century European writers show an interest in games, but no writer of this period mentions the playing of cards.

Conclusion (therefore)

It's likely that playing cards weren't common in Europe in the mid-14th century.

Evidence

There are mid-14th century European writers who show an interest in games, but don't mention playing cards.

The mid-14th rules against games mention dice / chess / other games, but don't mention playing cards.

Evaluate

This seems like an argument that lends itself more to conversationalizing than to diagramming.

How did the author try to convince us that playing cards weren't yet a thing?

She pointed to places where you'd expect playing cards to be mentioned, if they were a thing.

Goal

Let's look for an argument that's trying to convince us that, "X probably isn't a thing" by looking at where you'd be likely to see evidence of X and telling us that we don't see evidence there.

i.e.

8.

The pattern of reasoning in which one of the following is most similar to that in the argument above?

  1. Correct

    Neither today’s newspapers nor this

    Why this is right

    This seems to work. The conclusion is saying "there probably wasn't a fire" and the evidence is pointing to where we should see evidence of the fire if there really had been one. Just as writers who talked about games or statutes that regulated games would be likely to mention playing cards, if playing cards were a thing, so too would today's newspaper or evening news be likely to mention a huge port fire had there really been one. This answer also contains the superficial similarity that other people have claimed that X is a thing. In the original, "Contrary to what is sometimes claimed" In (A), "that is rumored to have happened"

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

    81% picked this

  2. This evening’s television news reported

    Bad Evidence Match

    The conclusion seems similar because we're saying that something probably wasn't true. But the premises don't involve looking at sources where you'd likely see evidence of X and pointing out that we don't see evidence of X. Instead, it compares two different sources, one of which claims X is true and the other of which says X is false. Then it has a premise to decide whom to trust in this Battle of Opinions (the tv news has more recent info). The original didn't have two competing sources, where the author argued we should believe one over the other. The original had two complementary sources, both of which lacked any mention of X.

    4% picked this

  3. Among the buildings that are

    Bad Conclusion / Evidence Match

    This conclusion isn't saying that something likely wasn't the case; it's saying something likely was the case. And the premises are looking at sources that would be likely to mention X and saying that they didn't mention X. Instead, it's just considering geographic proximity and anomalous behavior to come up with a probable hypothesis to explain the anomalous behavior.

    1% picked this

  4. The newspaper does not explicitly

    Bad Evidence Match

    This conclusion is saying that something likely wasn't the case. To have matching evidence, the premises should be pointing to sources that likely would have mentioned it if the port had been closed for long and showing that they didn't mention it. We talk about the newspaper, but it's not saying, "the paper never said the port was closed for long". It's saying, "The paper never said the port was only closed for a bit". The reference to what the paper didn't say isn't a premise; it's a concession. The actual evidence is indirect evidence that the port wasn't closed long by mentioning what the paper did say (it listed some newly arrived ships not too long after the fire). In other words, this argument is saying, "The paper didn't say that X was true, but it did say something else that indirectly suggests that X was true. So X was probably true." The original was "Neither source 1 nor source 2, both of which would be likely to mention X, mentioned X. Thus X was probably not a thing."

    11% picked this

  5. The newspaper is generally more

    Bad Evidence Match

    This is just like (B). The conclusion seems similar to the original because we're saying that something probably wasn't true. But the premises don't involve looking at sources that would likely mention if there was severe damage and pointing out that they don't mention severe damage. Instead, it mentions two different sources, elevates one over the other (which the original argument never did), and says that the source did mention a lack of severe damage. That would be like the 14th century writers or statutes mentioning that playing cards aren't a common thing. The author was using "they don't mention X" as evidence that X was probably not a thing. This argument is using, "they mention a lack of severe damage" as evidence that severe damage was probably not a thing.

    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