Logical Reasoning

PT145 · S4 · Q22 Theorist: Hatred and anger, grief

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

Theorist: Hatred and anger, grief and despair, love and joy are pairs of emotions that consist of the same core feeling and are distinguishable from each other only in terms of the social conditions that cause them and the behavior they in turn cause.

Conclusion (so)

Even if the meaning of a given piece of music is the emotion it elicits, this can mean only that music produces the core of a given emotion.

Evidence (for)

There are pairs of emotions that have the same core feeling, but can be distinguished from each other only in terms of the social conditions that cause them or the behavior they cause.

Intermediate Conclusion (therefore)

Music by itself cannot create social conditions or cause human behavior.

Evidence

Music is merely sound.

Evaluate

Whenever we do Role and Main Conclusion questions, we expect that 90% of the time the Main Conclusion will appear earlier than at least some of its support.

The word "So" attached to the first claim of the 2nd sentence indicates that the 1st sentence is supporting the "So" claim. Thus, the main conclusion can't possibly be the first sentence.

The word "for" (FABS: for, after all, because since) indicates support, so we know that the final two claims are there to support the "So" claim that begins the 2nd sentence.

Whenever we see a structure like this: X is true. After all, Y is true and thus Z is true.

We know that X was the main conclusion, and that the 2nd sentence serves to support X. The "thus" within the 2nd sentence tells us that Y supports Z.

Similarly, the "therefore" in the final sentence tells us that "music is merely sound" supports .

Goal

They're asking us about the claim that "music is merely sound", which supports an intermediate conclusion, which then supports the main conclusion.

22.

The claim that music is merely sound plays which one of the following roles in the theorist's argument?

It is a generalization a
Out of Scope
Out of Scope: generalization of instance Too Strong: view the argument attacks A generalization of a particular instance would be, "Eddie played guitar and the only thing that happened was vibrating sound waves. Thus, music is merely sound." We don't have any particular example of music only being sound, so this claim we're asked about is not a generalization of a particular instance. Furthermore, it's too strong or too much of a stretch to say the argument is attacking a viewpoint. The author is definitely saying that it would be incorrect to think that music conveys specific emotions like love vs. joy, but that idea hasn't been attributed to some viewpoint, so there's no one here for the author to "attack".
3% picked this
It is a portion of
Wrong Role
It's not part of the conclusion. Yes, it's found in the same sentence as the conclusion, but that doesn't make it part of the conclusion. Consider this argument: We should order sushi, because Jen loves sushi. The conclusion is "we should order sushi" and the support is "Jen loves sushi". We can't say that "Jen loves sushi" is a portion of the conclusion. It's a portion of the argument, yes. The conclusion of this argument ends and the support for it begins at the support indicator "for".
8% picked this
Correct
It is a claim that
Why this is right
This just says that our claim is one of the supporting ideas. We agree! If anyone rejected this because they were like, "Well, yes that's true, but ...", there's not really that sort of rationale for getting rid of Role answers. They're just true or not. There might be zero or almost zero cases in which we've eliminated an answer by saying, "That's true, but it's not the best true answer available". Pretty much always, if it matches we pick it.
Skill tested: Role · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
69% picked this
It is a generalization the
Out of Scope
Out of Scope: claimed to be necessary The author never claimed that "music needs to be seen as merely sound" in order for it to be true that "the meaning of a piece of music is the core of the emotion it elicits". This answer isn't saying that "music is just sound" is necessary; it's specifically saying that the author claimed that "music is just sound" is necessary, which definitely did not happen.
20% picked this
It is a hypothesis that
Opposite: rejected
The author isn't rejecting the idea that "music is merely sound". The author is explicitly using it as support for the the conclusion. She argued, "So claim 1, for claim 2 and therefore claim 3".
1% 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