Logical Reasoning

PT137 · S3 · Q8 Clark: Our local community theater

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

Clark: Our local community theater often produces plays by critically acclaimed playwrights.

Conclusion (So)

Michaela must be a critically acclaimed playwright.

Evidence (since)

Michaela's new play will be performed by the local theater this season. They often produce plays by critically acclaimed playwrights, and the director says that .

Evaluate

Given all the evidence, how could we argue that it's possible that Michaela is not a critically acclaimed playwright?

It seems pretty doable to argue that she might not be critically acclaimed (which is all we need to argue in order to defeat a conclusion that says she must be critically acclaimed).

The first premise says that the local theater often produces plays by critically acclaimed playwrights, but that doesn't mean they always do.

So maybe Michaela's play is just one of the non-critically acclaimed plays that the theater puts on.

The second premise says that the , but that doesn't mean .

Harvard Law's admissions board will say that . But can we assume that anyone admitted to Harvard had a 170+ score? Of course not. Maybe they had a great GPA, a compelling personal statement, and a famous Mom.

Goal

Look for an objection saying,

Or look for an objection saying,

The reasoning in Clark's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument

takes a condition necessary for
Wrong Flaw: not Necessary vs. Sufficient
This describes the most frequent of the famous flaws, Necessary vs. Sufficient, which means that the author presented a conditional logic rule in the premise and then applied it in a backwards or opposite way to reach her conclusion. Was there conditional logic in this argument? No. When we read "takes X for Y", we can ask ourselves whether X matches the evidence and Y matches the conclusion. In the evidence, did they present "a condition necessary for a playwright to be critically acclaimed"? Nope. They never said something was required in order to be considered a critically acclaimed playwright.
10% picked this
fails to consider that several
Not an Objection
When we see fails to consider X, we can ask ourselves, "If X were true, would it be an objection to this argument?" Can we say to the author, "Hey, author, Michaela isn't necessarily a critically acclaimed playwright, because several different effects may be produced by a single cause"? No, nothing in this argument was causal, other than the director saying "whether or not a play is critically acclaimed is a main factor in their decision making process." If anything, this argument "fails to consider that a single effect (getting produced by this local theater) may be produced by several different causes". This would feel kind of like saying, "Author, even though being critically acclaimed is one cause for why this theater might put a play on, there might be other causes that would also lead to that same effect".
0% picked this
Correct
treats one main factor considered
Why this is right
If we see an answer structured like treats X as though it were Y we can ask ourselves whether X matches the evidence and whether Y matches the conclusion or an assumption the author makes to reach the conclusion. Does the evidence discuss "one main factor considered in the selection of plays"? Yes, it says that critical acclaim "is one of the main factors considered". Does the author then go on to act like critical acclaim is a "condition that must be met in order for a play to be selected"? Yes, because the author's final move from premise to conclusion looks like this: M's new play was ? M is critically selected to be performed acclaimed The author thinks, "If your play is being performed, then you must be critically acclaimed", which is synonymous with thinking "being critically acclaimed is a condition that must be met in order for your play to be selected". This answer matches. Does it speak to a logic problem? Sure! It's bad logic to think that just because a 170+ LSAT score is a main factor considered by Harvard Law's application board that "a 170+ is a condition that must be met in order to be accepted".
Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
88% picked this
uses as evidence a source
Reliable Source
The only source cited was the production director. We're given no reason to think that she's unreliable, and she's certainly holding a position that would plausibly have good knowledge of the inner workings of how the local theater selects its plays.
0% picked this
provides no evidence that a
Wrong Flaw
Wrong Flaw: not Causal Assumes the Opposite This answer is citing the famous objection to a Causal argument, "What if you've confused cause and effect?" (reverse causality) When we see answer choices like this, provides no evidence that X fails to establish that X we can ask ourselves, "Was the author assuming X? Does it need to be true for her argument to work?" Was this author assuming that Michaela's critical acclaim was the result of being selected for production by this theater? No, not al all. In fact the author was thinking more like M's critical acclaim already existed and that's what allowed her play to be selected by this local theater.
2% 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