Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Easy

PT137 S2 Q3 Explanation

A person reading a new book

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

TopicsStrengthen

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Free to start

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Stimulus

A person reading a new book for pleasure is like a tourist traveling to a new place. The reader reads, just as the tourist travels, to enlarge understanding rather than simply to acquire information. Thus, it is better to read fewer books and spend more time on each rather than to quickly rather than to spend a small amount of time in many different places.

What this question is testing

Strengthen

Your task

Find the choice that makes the argument's conclusion more likely to be true.

Common trap

Answers that are consistent with the argument but add no real support, or that strengthen a claim the argument doesn't make.

Winning move

Locate the gap between evidence and conclusion, then pick the choice that closes it.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
3.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens

Answer choices

  1. No Impact1% picked this

    Tourists typically learn something about the places they visit even when they are there

    This choice discusses learning something even when tourists aim to relax. It lacks a direct connection to the analogy between reading and traveling, and it's not focused on the benefits of spending more time on fewer activities.

  2. Correct97% picked this

    Tourists gain much more understanding of a place once they have spent several days at that place than they do in

    Why this is right

    This strengthens, via the analogy, by suggesting that more time spent (whether traveling or reading) results in better understanding, aligning with the recommended method of focusing in depth rather than covering more ground.

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

  3. Irrelevant Comparison1% picked this

    Many people report that they can learn far more about a place by visiting it than they can

    This compares learning from reading versus visiting places, which is irrelevant as the argument treats reading and traveling as analogous for the purpose of understanding, not as competing methods.

  4. Irrelevant Comparison1% picked this

    Tourists who have read about a place beforehand tend to stay longer

    This discusses tourists staying longer due to reading beforehand, which introduces a causality not pertinent to the analogy about general reading or traveling practice. It's unrelated to the recommendation of focusing deeply (whether you're traveling or reading).

  5. Too Weak: some Opposite (if anything)0% picked this

    Some tourists are unconcerned about gaining information about a place other than what is necessary

    An answer this weak would almost never be correct on "Which, if true" questions (str, wkn, paradox, princ-str, suff assump). And a tourist that doesn't even want a deeper understanding of an area feels more like it goes against the gist of what the author is talking about.

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