Logical Reasoning

PT145 · S4 · Q2 Albert: Swenson’s popular book

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

Albert: Swenson’s popular book, which argues that sun exposure does not harm skin cells, is a model of poor scholarship.

Albert's Claims

1. Swenson's popular book is a model of poor scholarship

2. Swenson's popular book argues that sun exposure does not harm skin cells.

3. Swenson's popular book is valuable (despite this) because it's stimulated new research on sun exposure.

Does Yvonne Disagree

1. His book is not a model of poor scholarship? No, she never addresses the issue of whether it's good or bad scholarship.

2. His book doesn't argue that sun exposure doesn't harm skin cells? No, she never addresses the contents of his book.

3. His book is not valuable because it's stimulated new research on sun exposure? Yes, this is what she seems to be arguing. She's saying, .

Goal

Since Yvonne is taking issue with Albert's 3rd claim, let's look for an answer that addresses whether or not something is valuable.

Or if they're trying to be sneakier with wording, .

2.

The dialogue provides the most support for the claim that Albert and Yvonne disagree over whether

  1. sun exposure harms skin cells

    Both Positions Unsupported

    We couldn't derive "sun exposure harms skin cells" from either person's claims, nor could we derive "sun exposure doesn't harm skin cells" from either person's claims. (Yes, Swenson believes that sun exposure doesn't harm skin cells, but we have no idea whether Albert believes that) Yvonne doesn't talk about sun exposure or skin cells at all.

    0% picked this

  2. Swenson’s book is a model

    Unsupported Disagree Position

    We can support that Albert agrees with this, because he explicitly says so. But can we support from Yvonne's claims that she thinks "Swenson's book is not a model of poor scholarship"? No, she doesn't talk about Swenson's book at all, so we have no idea whether she thinks it's good or bad scholarship. We only know that she thinks it's a crazy argument to say, "S's book is poor scholarship, but it's valuable because it stimulated research."

    0% picked this

  3. Correct

    Swenson’s book should be considered

    Why this is right

    We can support the Agree position with Albert, because he explicitly says the book is valuable. We can support the Disagree position (Swenson's book should not be considered valuable) with Yvonne. She reacts to Albert saying "The book is nonetheless valuable" by exasperatingly disagreeing: "You're kidding me!" She provides an analogy to show Albert how crazy his conclusion is. "Would you conclude that a virus is valuable because it stimulates epidemiologists? Of course not. Similarly, you shouldn't consider Swenson's book valuable just because it stimulated research."

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

    96% picked this

  4. Swenson’s book has stimulated new

    Unsupported Disagree Position

    We can support that Albert agrees with this, because he explicitly says so. But can we support from Yvonne's claims that she thinks "Swenson's book has not stimulated new research"? No, she doesn't seem to deny that the book has stimulated new research.

    1% picked this

  5. something that does not stimulate

    Both Positions Unsupported

    We can't infer "something that doesn't stimulate new research can have value" from either person's claims. Neither of them discuss "something that doesn't stimulate new research". They both only talk about something (Swenson's book / a new virus) that does stimulate new research. Since we have no commentary on things that don't stimulate new research, we have no support for agreeing or disagreeing with this claim. This answer is nonetheless a little tempting, because a legitimate answer could have been "something that does stimulate new research automatically has value". (Albert would agree and Yvonne would disagree with this claim)

    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