Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT141 S2 Q10 Explanation

Actor: Bertolt Brecht's plays

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

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

Actor: Bertolt Brecht's plays are not genuinely successful dramas. The roles in Brecht's plays express such incongruous motives and beliefs that audiences, as well as the actors playing the roles, invariably find it difficult, at best, to discern any of the characters' personalities. But, for a play what happens to at least some of its characters.

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
10.

The conclusion of the actor's argument can be properly drawn if which one of the

Answer choices

  1. Correct60% picked this

    An audience that cannot readily discern a character's personality will not take any interest

    Why this is right

    We're told that audiences invariably find it difficult to discern any of BB's characters' personalities. This rule says, "well then for BB's plays, an audience will not take interest in any of the characters." And according to the last sentence, when an audience doesn't take interest, it's not a successful drama. Formally, here are the two premises and answer choice combining to yield our conclusion. Premise Answer (A) Premise BB's → can't → don't → unsuccessful plays discern care abt drama personality characters C O N C L U S I O N BB's ---------------------------→ unsuccessful plays drama

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

  2. Unrelated to Goal3% picked this

    A character's personality is determined primarily by the motives and beliefs

    If an answer doesn't establish for us that audiences don't care what happens to any of the characters in BB's plays, then it's functionally useless for us. That's the only way we have of proving that a drama is unsuccessful.

  3. Unclear Impact27% picked this

    The extent to which a play succeeds as a drama is directly proportional to the extent to which the play's

    This is mostly a reiteration of the final sentence, a premise. It takes what was a conditional on/off relationship between success and audience-caring and turns it into a "volume dial" (the more X, the more Y) relationship. Thanks, but no thanks, (C)! We were fine with the on/off relationship. We just haven't yet established that BB's audiences don't care about any of the characters. In fact we have no idea to what degree BB's audiences care about the characters, so we can't apply the rule in this answer choice to derive how successful his plays are or aren't.

  4. Out of Scope7% picked this

    If the personalities of a play's characters are not readily discernible by the actors playing the roles, then those personalities are not

    Out of Scope: actors' discernment Unrelated to Goal If an answer doesn't establish for us that audiences don't care what happens to any of the characters in BB's plays, then it's functionally useless for us. That's the only way we have of proving that a drama is unsuccessful. This answer, uselessly, examines whether or not actors can discern the personalities of the characters they're portraying.

  5. Empathize With vs. Care What Happens3% picked this

    All plays that, unlike Brecht's plays, have characters with whom audiences empathize

    This answer is part conditional and part factual. The factual part is telling us that BB's plays have characters with whom audiences do not empathize. So is it the same to say "audiences don't empathize with the characters in BB's plays" as it is to say "audiences don't care what happens to the characters in BB's plays"? To empathize is to understand / share someone else's feelings (usually from having had similar experience). I don't empathize with Batman's feelings -- I don't understand or share the feelings of what it's like to be a billionaire whose parents were killed in front of him, who now secretly fights crime with technologically futuristic weaponry. But I still care what happens to Batman! Since this answer is only addressing whether audiences empathize with BB's characters (and since empathy ≠ care about what happens to you), this answer tells us nothing about whether audiences do / don't care about what happens to the characters in BB's plays.

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