Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT14 S4 Q12 Explanation

Conservative: Socialists begin their arguments

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

TopicsSufficient Assumption

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

Conservative: Socialists begin their arguments with an analysis of history, from which they claim to derive certain trends leading inevitably to a socialist future. But in the day‐to‐day progress of history there are never such discernible trends. Only occurs through accident, contingency, and individual struggle.

Socialist: If we thought the outcome of history were inevitable, we would not work so hard to transform the institutions of capitalist society. But to transform them we must first understand them, and we can only understand them by why historical analysis is important in socialist argument.

What this question is testing

Sufficient Assumption

Your task

Find the assumption that, if added, guarantees the conclusion follows.

Common trap

Answers that only partly bridge the gap, leaving the conclusion unproven.

Winning move

Identify the new term in the conclusion and pick the choice that links it to the evidence.

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

The question
12.

The socialist’s statements imply a conflict with the conservative’s view of history if the conservative

Answer choices

  1. No Conflict17% picked this

    it would have been impossible for anyone to predict a significant period beforehand that the institutions of capitalist society would take the

    This doesn't conflict with the socialist because she wasn't arguing that it was possible to predict how capitalist institutions would look in the future. She is only saying it's possible to understand the history behind capitalist institutions, thereby allowing us to understand capitalist institutions, and thereby allowing us to seek to transform them in the future.

  2. No Conflict20% picked this

    the apparent inevitability of historical change is deceptive; all historical events could have occurred otherwise

    This doesn't conflict with the socialist because the socialist implies that she doesn't think history is inevitable. She says, "If we thought it was inevitable, then we wouldn't act as we do (thus we don't think it's inevitable)." Since the socialist doesn't think history is actually inevitable, she could potentially agree to this statement that "the semblance of inevitability is an illusion".

  3. No Conflict1% picked this

    in the past, radical changes in social structures have mostly resulted in a deterioration

    This doesn't conflict with the socialist because the socialist never said anything about radical changes. She may believe that most radical changes of social structures in the past resulted in a deterioration of social conditions.

  4. No Conflict4% picked this

    since socialism cannot arise by accident or contingency, it can only arise as a result

    This doesn't conflict with the socialist because she never talked about what conditions do / don't allow for socialism to arise.

  5. Correct59% picked this

    because historical changes are mostly accidental, it is impossible for people to direct their efforts sensibly toward achieving

    Why this is right

    This conflicts with the socialist, because she is saying that it's possible to understand the history behind capitalist institutions, thereby allowing us to understand capitalist institutions, and thereby allowing us to seek to transform them in the future. If it's impossible for people to direct their efforts sensibly toward achieving large-scale changes in social conditions, then that conflicts with the socialist's whole plan. She is hoping to understand how capitalist institutions arose so that she can work so hard to transform them. "Transforming capitalist institutions" is a match for "achieving large-scale changes in social conditions". In short, this answer makes it sound like the socialist's plan (to understand capitalism well enough to transform it) is an impossible task to carry out.

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

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