Seventeenth-century proponents

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

TopicsRole

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

Free to start

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

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. This proliferation of arguments has been construed as evidence that the principles of mechanism themselves are in tension support democracy and that the arguments multiplied because none of them worked.

What this question is testing

Role

Your task

Break the argument into its conclusion and evidence, then do exactly what the question stem asks with that structure.

Common trap

Answers that sound relevant to the topic but don't connect to the argument's actual reasoning.

Winning move

Predict what a right answer must do, then test each choice against the conclusion-evidence gap.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question

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

Answer choices

Opposite: seeks to establish1% picked this
It states a principle that the argument seeks
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%
Wrong Ingredient7% picked this
It describes a general phenomenon that the argument seeks
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%
Correct87% picked this
It introduces a hypothesis that the
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%
Opposite: supporting evidence4% picked this
It provides evidence in support of the conclusion of
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%
Wrong Target2% picked this
It expresses the conclusion of the
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%

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