Logical Reasoning

PT146 · S2 · Q2 Success l stand-up comedians

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

Successful stand-up comedians are able to keep the attention of a large audience for a few hours, in such a way that the audience remembers long afterwards what the comedian said.

Given

Successful stand-up comedians are able to keep the attention of a large audience for a few hours.

The audience remembers long afterwards what the comedian said.

In their routines, many comedians make interesting points about serious topics.

Humor is the means through which comedians are able to accomplish all of this.

University professors hope to achieve much the same in their lectures.

Evaluate

The conclusion indicator "thus" at the end of the argument tells us that the correct answer will be a conclusion supported by the given statements, a conclusion which uses the given statements as evidence. However, the question stem only asks for the answer that "most logically completes the argument." So, the correct answer doesn't need to be an airtight conclusion.

The evidence describes how successful stand-up comedians keep their audiences engaged. It also contains a statement of causation: Since university professors want to accomplish the same result in their lectures, it makes sense for the argument to conclude that professors can likewise use humor to achieve that result. This would be a conclusion based on reasoning that a similar cause can produce a similar result.

Goal

We'll look for an answer which indicates that university professors can use humor in their lectures. Beware of answers that bring in ideas which seem related but actually go beyond the scope of the evidence. Also beware of answers which express unsupported relationships between the concepts in the evidence, and ones that are actually contradicted by the evidence.

2.

Which one of the following most logically completes the argument?

  1. stand-up comedians and university professors

    Too Strong: same

    We can reasonably say that the ability to use humor is a skill that comedians possess, and the evidence indicates that it would be useful for professors to apply that same skill in their lectures. But that's only one skill. The evidence doesn't support the idea that comedians and professors need the exact same skill set. And the evidence certainly doesn't support the idea that they have the same skill set, which this answer claims.

    0% picked this

  2. Correct

    incorporating humor into lectures can

    Why this is right

    This answer concludes that professors should use the same technique as comedians in order to achieve a similar result.

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

    96% picked this

  3. university professors can achieve the

    Too Strong: only

    The evidence supports the idea that humor is one way for professors to achieve their goals. The evidence doesn't indicate that humor is the only way for professors to achieve their goals.

    1% picked this

  4. there is no reason to

    Contradicted

    We're told that successful stand-up comedians are able to keep the attention of a large audience for a few hours. We're also told that university professors "hope" to achieve much the same in their lectures. "Hope" indicates that the professors aren't guaranteed to achieve this. This suggests that there is a reason to suppose that a lecture lasting several hours cannot hold an audience's attention.

    1% picked this

  5. university professors should treat even

    Too Strong

    The evidence states that comedians make interesting points about serious topics, and indicates that they use humor while doing this. A correct answer might indicate that professors can use humor to make interesting points about serious topics. Stating that they should use humor to do this is a bit too strong, and stating that they should use use humor when discussing the most serious topics is too strong of a claim to be supported by the analogy in the evidence.

    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