Logical Reasoning

PT147 · S4 · Q15 Many scholars claim that Shakespeare's

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

Many scholars claim that Shakespeare's portrayal of Richard III was extremely inaccurate, arguing that he derived that portrayal from propagandists opposed to Richard III.

Conclusion

To appreciate Shakespeare's work in Richard III, it's irrelevant whether the portrayal was inaccurate or that it was derived by people who didn't like him.

Evidence

The character in S's work is fascinating and illuminating both aesthetically and morally.

Evaluate

This argument because with an Attribution (many scholars claim) and then a pivot (But), which is a classic setup for a Rebuttal conclusion.

The conclusion is essentially trying to prove that certain claims are irrelevant to appreciating a certain work. So we will definitely want an answer that has language about about whether or not something is "relevant to appreciating" a work.

The author's premise is simply that the character is super interesting and illuminating. She's not worried whether the character is historically accurate; she isn't going to let that get in the way of the fact that the character is just super compelling as a character.

Goal

If we're predicting the classic "If Premise, then Conclusion" type of answer, then we want something like,

15.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the reasoning in the argument above?

  1. Correct

    In historical drama, the aesthetic

    Why this is right

    This is a very weird correct answer for several reasons, but this is the only answer that has any language that would come close to matching up with our conclusion: "irrelevant to appreciating his work" .... "the aesthetic value is not undermined". It's still a far cry, but it's the best available. The author was arguing that it's irrelevant to appreciating Shakespeare's portrayal of Richard III whether that portrayal was inaccurate or provided by some of his haters. This answer weakly supports that idea, by saying, "historical inaccuracies don't necessarily undermine aesthetic value". How is this answer weird? Let me count the ways. (<-- Shakepearean) 1) it's incredibly weak. It is basically like a Defender Necessary Assumption answer. If aesthetic value is necessarily undermined by historical inaccuracies, that would crush this argument. So it strengthens somewhat to rule out that idea. But this answer is only saying, "it's possible that the historical inaccuracies of Richard III don't taint the aesthetic value." 2) there is NO language relating to the Evidence! Almost every single correct answer on Principle Strengthen is 1/2 prem, 1/2 conc, so it's very weird that this answer doesn't have any connection to the author's actual evidence, which is that the portrayal is super interesting and compelling in its own right. 3) the language match with the conclusion is super weak! As we mentioned before, the closest we get to "X is irrelevant to appreciating the work" is "X does not undermine the aesthetic value". Overall, this question is a great example of when the test's tendencies abandon us and we just need to pick best available.

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

    97% picked this

  2. In dealing with real people,

    Opposite

    This would help the opponents argue that Shakespeare should have portrayed Richard III accurately, rather than helping our author argue that it's irrelevant whether he portrayed Richard III accruately.

    0% picked this

  3. Shakespeare's historical importance puts him

    Bad Evidence / Conclusion Match

    The author never discusses Shakespeare's historical importance. And Shakespeare isn't being criticized necessarily. People just said his portrayal was inaccurate, which isn't necessarily a criticism. It does feel like this answer is so powerful that it would exonerate Shakespeare from any negative ideas. But the author's conclusion isn't really about defending Shakespeare. It's about trying to show that "concerns about accuracy are irrelevant to appreciating a work". This answer isn't addressing that as much as (A) is.

    1% picked this

  4. History is always told by

    Bad Conclusion Match

    This has absolutely nothing do with whether "the accuracy of a portrayal is / isn't relevant to appreciating the work".

    0% picked this

  5. Historical inaccuracies should be corrected

    Bad Conclusion Match

    The contrapositive of this would say "If a historical inaccuracy isn't besmirching the reputation of a good person, then you should not correct that inaccuracy". The conclusion wasn't about whether Shakespeare should / shouldn't have corrected an inaccuracy. It was about whether inaccuracies are / aren't relevant to appreciating that work.

    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