Logical Reasoning

PT149 · S1 · Q11 Lecturer: If I say

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

Lecturer: If I say, “I tried to get my work done on time,” the meanings of my words do not indicate that I didn’t get it done on time.

Statements

Saying doesn't actually mean that the person failed to get their work on time, but that is what the speaker is trying to convey.

Had they gotten their work done on time, they would have said "I got my work done on time".

This is typical of how conversation works.

Evaluate

This is a very odd Inference stimulus. There don't seem to be any of the usual wording clues that suggest where they might want to go with this (conditional / causal / pivots / math-y stuff).

We're basically just hearing that it's typical in conversation for the implied meaning to be different from the literal meaning.

Someone who did get their work done on time could also truthfully say, , because "to try" means you applied intention and effort, which would clearly be true of anyone who completed their work.

Goal

Let's just look for a safely-worded claim that can be supported by the fact that .

11.

The lecturer's statements, if true, most strongly support which one of the following statements?

  1. Correct

    Understanding what people say often

    Why this is right

    If people are typically trying to convey an idea that isn't captured by the literal meaning of the words they used, then understanding what others mean with their statements typically involves understanding more than just the literal meaning of the words they use. Typically is even stronger than often, so we're safe in supporting that frequency modifier.

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

    91% picked this

  2. It is unusual for English

    Opposite

    The last sentence basically contradicts this. It says, "this example we just spelled out with tried is typical", not an anomaly.

    1% picked this

  3. Understanding what people use a

    Out of Scope: nonverbal cues

    While this is undoubtedly true in real-life, nothing in the paragraph talks about nonverbal cues. If someone were talking to us on the phone (i.e. we had no nonverbal cues), we would still know that "I tried to get my work done on time" implies "I tried and failed to get my work done on time".

    1% picked this

  4. Speakers often convey more information

    Opposite

    The 2nd sentence is saying that it would be a correct understanding to hear "I tried to get my work done on time" as conveying both 1. I tried 2. I failed The "and I failed to get it done on time" is not "more information than the speaker intended to convey". It is information the speaker intended to convey.

    5% picked this

  5. Listeners cannot reasonably be expected

    Out of Scope: knowledge required

    We don't know what knowledge is typically required for successful communication. And this answer is giving off a vibe of, "Listeners are in a hopeless predicament! Don't blame them for misunderstanding what you mean. We can't expect them to know what they'd need to know to understand you." The passage, meanwhile, was acting more like listeners have no issue with understanding the extra meaning built into "I tried to get my work done".

    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