Logical Reasoning

PT146 · S3 · Q14 Seventeenth-century proponents

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

Seventeenth-century proponents of the philosophical school of thought known as mechanism produced numerous arguments that sought to use the principles of mechanism to establish the superiority of monarchies over all other systems of government.

Curious Fact

Why did mechanism produce so many arguments establishing the superiority of monarchy over other systems of government?

Someone Else's Explanation

Maybe the principles of mechanism are in tension with democracy (so the principles of mechanism naturally lend themselves to saying that monarchy is better than democracy).

Author's Explanation

Nah. I bet mechanism works fine with democracy. I bet what happened is that every time a mechanist tried to argue that monarchy was better, the argument would fail (because democracy is actually better), and so someone else would have to come up with a different mechanist argument for why monarch is better.

Evaluate

Even thought the question stem labels this an "argument", it's not easy to find a classic Conclusion + Support structure. It's more natural to talk about this argument in our Explain Curious Fact framework, because it's all about one possible explanation vs. an alternate explanation for some curious fact.

Suppose we say, My conclusion was there was that Kevin is really crying because of the new climate change warnings, but I didn't actually support that with anything.

Similarly, this author doesn't give any premise for why we should believe that it's more likely that mechanism supports democracy and that the plurality of mechanist arguments in favor of monarchy are really just an indication that they kept unsuccessfully trying to prove that monarchy was better.

Goal

We're being asked about the 2nd sentence. We know it's an Opposing idea, because the author follows it with "But it is more likely that ___ ".

We will probably see some language saying that this 2nd sentence described .

14.

The claim that the proliferation of arguments has been construed as evidence that the principles of mechanism themselves are in tension with democracy plays which one of the following roles in the argument?

  1. It states a principle that

    Opposite: seeks to establish

    This sentence isn't a principle, it's reporting on a possible inference some people might draw from this plurality of pro-monarchy arguments. And the author isn't seeking to establish this sentence; she is flatly rejecting it in her final sentence.

    1% picked this

  2. It describes a general phenomenon

    Wrong Ingredient

    This answer choice would correctly describe the 1st sentence. The 2nd sentence, which is what we're supposed to be describing, offers a potential explanation for the general phenomenon described in the 1st sentence.

    7% picked this

  3. Correct

    It introduces a hypothesis that

    Why this is right

    Hypothesis = potential explanation The author challenges this explanation, in the final sentence, with an alternate hypothesis she considers more likely. If we were feeling very confused on this problem, but we knew from the "But" starting the final sentence that the author Opposes this 2nd sentence, we could pick this answer merely because it's the only one offering wording that aligns with an Opposing role ("the argument challenges this claim").

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

    87% picked this

  4. It provides evidence in support

    Opposite: supporting evidence

    We were looking for Opposing, not Supporting. The author rejects this claim in her final sentence. She doesn't use this claim to support her conclusion. (Also, there really isn't any premise offered in support of the conclusion. It's just our author saying, "Some people might think that X was the reason. But I think it's more likely than Y was the reason.")

    4% picked this

  5. It expresses the conclusion of

    Wrong Target

    The conclusion would be the final sentence, where the author offers us her preferred explanation of why there were so many mechanist arguments in favor of monarchy.

    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