Logical Reasoning

PT130 · S4 · Q12 Sahira: To make a living

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

Sahira: To make a living from their art, artists of great potential would have to produce work that would gain widespread popular acclaim, instead of their best work.

Sahira's Conclusion (that is why)

Government subsidies for artists are justified.

Sahira's Evidence

Without subsidies, artists who want to make a living would have to produce work for popular acclaim instead of their best work.

Rahima's Response

Rahima just says that one of Sahira's underlying ideas is wrong. Is it a premise? An assumption?

Sahira says that artists . She's assuming that an artist's best work wouldn't gain popular acclaim. Rahima seems to disagree.

Goal

A lot of correct answers on Method talk about the 2nd person challenging an assumption the 1st person made. In this case, it would seem fair to say that Rahima challenges a premise, as well as an assumption.

12.

In her argument, Rahima

  1. Correct

    disputes an implicit assumption of

    Why this is right

    Sahira's argument implicitly assumes artists must produce something other than their best work to gain popular acclaim — i.e., that "best work" and "popular work" are different things. Rahima dispute that idea. ("but this need not be true").

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

    83% picked this

  2. presents independent support for Sahira's

    Bad Description

    Rahima is the opposite of supporting Sahira. She's pushing back on Sahira's argument by attacking a hidden assumption it relies on. She doesn't add independent support; she undermines.

    0% picked this

  3. accepts Sahira's conclusion, but for

    Bad Description

    Rahima never accepts Sahira's conclusion, that government subsidies are justified. This answer makes it seem like Sahira was arguing, "subsidies ARE justified, but for a different reason." Sahira merely said, "whoa -- can't an artist's best work also garner popular acclaim?"

    3% picked this

  4. uses Sahira's premises to reach

    Bad Description

    Rahima doesn't use Sahira's premises to reach a different conclusion. Rahima doesn't make any conclusion. She rejects one of Sahira's implicit premises (that best work can't coincide with popular acclaim). She doesn't take the premises as given and run them in a different direction, as this answer says.

    11% picked this

  5. argues that a standard that

    Bad Description

    "Self-contradictory" is much too strong. Rahima doesn't argue Sahira's standard contradicts itself; she just says the assumption Sahira makes "need not be true." That's a milder objection than self-contradiction. This is a famous style of trap answer on Method (accusing the 1st person of a contradiction).

    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