Logical Reasoning

PT137 · S4 · Q11 Science fiction creates an appetite

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

Science fiction creates an appetite for interstellar space exploration among certain people.

Conclusion ("no doubt" = clearly)

One effect of science fiction has been to create an unproductive dissatisfaction with the way the world actually is.

Evidence (since)

Gaps between expectations and reality spur discontent.

Science fiction creates an appetite for interstellar space exploration, but that's not going to happen with any technology humanity will soon possess.

Evaluate

On Assumption questions, it's a very powerful habit to ask ourselves, "Is there a New Concept in the Conclusion"? Because, if so, the correct answer will usually deal with that concept.

By "New", we mean, "it was never talked about in the evidence".

This conclusion talks about "sci-fi" and talks about .

Did the evidence talk about "sci-fi"?

Yes, we have a premise saying that sci-fi creates an appetite for interstellar space exploration (which won't be satisfied anytime soon).

Did the evidence talk about ?

Certainly not in those words. But the final premise before the conclusion is talking about discontent, which is an equivalent synonym for dissatisfaction.

Is the "discontent" being talked about a discontent "with the way the world actually is"?

Sure, the premise is talking about a gap between expectation and reality. So to be discontent about that gap is to be dissatisfied with how reality measures up to our expectations.

Since there isn't a New Concept in the Conclusion, since both of them are actually talked about in the evidence, that tells us that this argument is missing a Link Between Premises.

While we don't have to formally diagram the argument, the visual might help. The conclusion represents this logic path:

Sci-fi ------------------------------> Discontent

The premises have established these two parts of that path:

appetite gap between Sci-fi --> for space expectation --> Discontent travel & reality

What we're missing is a connection from idea 2 to idea 3.

appetite gap between for space → expectation travel & reality

If you hate all that formal logic, then play Opposing Counsel and argue that,

This lawyer is arguing that it has, because gaps between expectations and reality spur discontent.

So you need to argue that, .

This lawyer will say,

So you need to argue that,

Goal

Look for an answer saying that the author assumes .

11.

Which one of the following is an assumption the argument requires?

  1. Correct

    The fact that the appetite

    Why this is right

    This is supplying that Link Between Premises we were missing. The author established that "sci-fi created an appetite", and she established that "a reality/expectation gap leads to discontent". But she hadn't yet proven that "sci-fi led to discontent", because she never established that "creating an appetite leads to a reality/expectation gap". If we negated this, it would weaken, because it would say, "Hey, author. Sure, sci-fi has created an appetite that won't soon be satisfied. But the fact that the appetite won't soon be satisfied has not created a reality/expectation gap."

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

    67% picked this

  2. If science fiction has created

    Reversed Logic Too Strong

    Reversed Logic Too Strong: only by If-Conclusion The conclusion is saying that "sci-fi has created an unproductive dissatisfaction". This answer is putting that idea into the trigger of an If/Then statement. That is wrong 100% of the time. We never want to see our Conclusion in the trigger, only in the outcome. (It's okay to see the negation of the Conclusion in the trigger, because that's what the contrapositive looks like. And it's okay to see some noun/phrase from the conclusion in the trigger, but it's never okay to see the actual sentence of the conclusion in the trigger.) So as soon as we see the entire conclusion in the trigger, we can throw this out. This answer is also saying something Too Strong, because it's claiming that the only way sci-fi has created discontent is through generating an appetite for space travel. If I say, "Bruno robbed a bank. Thus, Bruno is a criminal", am I assuming that "the only way in which Bruno has committed criminal acts is by robbing a bank"? No. Just because that's the only crime I mentioned doesn't mean that I'm assuming that the's only crime there is.

    5% picked this

  3. Few if any of the

    Out of Scope: other appetites

    We already know that the appetite for space travel will not be soon satisfied. This answer is addressing whether other appetites (beyond that one) are also ones that will not be soon satisfied. The author doesn't need to assume anything about whether there are other unsatisfied appetites created by sci-fi. If there are, that would potentially help the author argue that sci-fi has created discontent. But even if there aren't, the author's argument isn't harmed. As long as she can successfully show that the appetite for space travel has created discontent, then she can prove that sci-fi has created discontent.

    7% picked this

  4. Most people unrealistically expect that

    Too Strong: most

    The argument is definitely thinking that as a result of sci-fi, at least some people now have an appetite for space travel as well as an expectation for it. And since we won't possess that technology any time soon, it is an unrealistic expectation that humanity will soon possess it. But, the author definitely doesn't need to assume anything about most people. It wouldn't make any difference whether 49% or 51% of people have an unrealistic expectation based on sci-fi. If anyone has an unrealistic expectation based on sci-fi, then the author's conclusion is correct; sci-fi has fostered some discontent. The word "most" is wrong on Necessary Assumption 99% of the time we see it.

    8% picked this

  5. If the appetites science fiction

    Illegal Negation

    This is taking the reasoning core of the argument and just inverting it. The argument was thinking, "If the appetites created by sci-fi can't be satisfied any time soon, then sci-fi has created an unproductive dissatisfaction". This answer is accusing the author of having argued, "If the appetites created by sci-fi could be satisfied any time soon, sci-fi could not create an unproductive dissatisfaction".

    12% 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