Lopez: Our university is not committed

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

TopicsMethod

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

Lopez: Our university is not committed to liberal arts, as evidenced by its decision to close the classics department. The study of classical antiquity is crucial to the been so since the Renaissance.

Warrington: Although the study of classical works is essential to the liberal arts, a classics department isn’t, since engage in that study.

What this question is testing

Method

Your task

Describe how the argument proceeds — the technique it uses to reach its conclusion.

Common trap

Answers that describe a method the argument doesn't actually use.

Winning move

Track the role each statement plays, then match that to the choice describing the same moves.

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

The question

Warrington’s argument proceeds

Answer choices

Opposite: in favor1% picked this
offering additional reasons in favor of the conclusion of
Warrington is pushing back against Lopez's argument, not adding another premise in agreement.
1%
Out of Scope: appeal to tradition2% picked this
claiming that the reasoning in Lopez’s argument rests on an illicit
Nothing Warrington says claims that Lopez is appealing to tradition. Warrington just says that Lopez is failing to consider that classical works will continue to be taught at this university, just within other departments.
2%
Too Strong: direct challenge to conclusion10% picked this
mounting a direct challenge to the conclusion of
If Warrington were directly challenging Lopez's conclusion, then she would be arguing (directly) that "our university is committed to liberal arts". She never speaks directly on that subject. She is only speaking on whether closing down the classic department is a sign that the university doesn't care about liberal arts. She doesn't think Lopez is right to see the end of the classics department as the end of classical antiquity being studied at this university.
10%
Offering Objection, not Responding to6% picked this
responding to a possible objection to the reasoning in
Warrington is offering a possible objection to the reasoning in Lopez's argument. Responding to a possible objection would be something you'd do to help assist someone's argument. "Brian says we should have coffee, not tea at the wedding. And while some people might say that tea is more appropriate for the fancy setting of the wedding, the fact is the bride and groom are coffee lovers so Brian is right."
6%
Correct81% picked this
presenting a consideration in order to undermine the reasoning in
Why this is right
Warrington presented the consideration that the study of classical works will continue on, even after the classics department is closed, in order to undermine Lopez's fatalism that the university is not committed to liberal arts.
Skill tested: Method · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
81%

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