Logical Reasoning

PT137 · S2 · Q14 Drama critic: There were many

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

Drama critic: There were many interesting plays written last year.

Conclusion

None of last year's plays will be popular several centuries from now.

Evidence

The only plays that continue to be performed regularly over many decades and centuries are those that skillfully explore human nature, and none of last year's plays skillfully explore human nature.

Evaluate

It's pretty tough to even diagnose what's intended to be the Conclusion vs. the Evidence. We know the first sentence is a fact. The second sentence makes three predictions (predictions are always opinions), so any of those claims could have been a conclusion, but the author didn't offer any support for why "some will gain popularity" or why "some will receive high critical acclaim".

She pivots with a "but", and usually in arguments, pivots like "but, yet, however" indicate that everything before the pivot was NOT the argument, and everything following it IS the argument.

Her last prediction in that sentence is that . Why should we believe that?

She supports this prediction with the last two claims, which combine a conditional rule about "what will be regularly performed centuries from now" and then a fact about last year's plays that triggers that conditional.

Whenever we read two consecutive claims that chain together or that synthesize into one takeaway, we should pause and perform that step.

The 2nd to last claim is a conditional: continue to be regularly → skillfully examine performed for centuries human nature

~skillfully examine → ~continue to be regularly human nature performed for centuries

And the last claim is a fact (or a conditional, if you want to think of it that way) that triggers that contrapositive: Last year's plays → ~skillfully examine

We can chain those two together, or if you prefer, we can apply that rule we were given to the fact we were told about last year's plays. Either way you slice it, the synthesis is this:

Last year's plays are not going to be performed regularly over many decades and centuries.

How does that compare to the conclusion the author derives? Last year's plays are not going to be popular several centuries from now.

Comparing the inference we get from the final sentence to the inference the author thinks we get, in her conclusion, allows us to see a gap.

Goal

The author is going from If it's not performed regularly over many decades and centuries, then it's not going to be popular several centuries from now.

14.

The argument relies on assuming which one of the following?

  1. Correct

    No play will be popular

    Why this is right

    When we see "unless", we can replace it with "if-not" (meaning, 'if it is not the case that ____ '). if not continued to be performed regularly during the intervening play won't be time (the decades and → popular several centuries between now centuries from now and "several centuries from now") This is the link we predicted. They just made it weird by saying "intervening time". The author was thinking that a play won't be popular several centuries from now unless it continues to be performed (she doesn't think that a play written today would be un-performed for years and years and years and then suddenly be discovered several hundred years from now and become popular).

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

    59% picked this

  2. For a play to deserve

    Out of Scope: deserve acclaim

    The author doesn't conclude anything about whether or not these plays deserve critical acclaim, so the author isn't committed to assuming any rule about what does / doesn't deserve high acclaim.

    1% picked this

  3. There were no plays written

    Too Strong

    Too Strong: critic read/saw all plays We have no way to derive from this paragraph that the critic either read or saw ever play written last year. He has an opinion about all of them (none of them examine human nature in a skillful way), but that doesn't mean he read or saw all of them. Maybe he had a trusted friend tell him about several plays: "Don't waste your time reading these or seeing these --- none of them skillfully examine human nature".

    16% picked this

  4. If a play does not

    Contradicted

    Not only does the author not need to assume anything about whether plays will or won't receive critical acclaim (since that isn't part of the conclusion), this answer is actually contradicted by what we've read. We know that some of last year's plays will receive critical acclaim and all of them do not skillfully explore human nature. The plays that don't skillfully explore human nature and yet still receive critical acclaim would contradict this answer choice, so the author definitely isn't assuming something that would contradict what she said.

    5% picked this

  5. Any play that skillfully examines

    Opposite / Reversed Logic

    We were given a conditional in the last sentence that said doesn't skillfully → won't be performed explore human nature regularly for centuries And this answer is just offering us an illegal negation of that. Does skillfully explore → Will be performed

    19% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

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