Logical Reasoning

PT150 · S2 · Q6 John's literature professor believes

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

John's literature professor believes that the ability to judge the greatness of literary works accurately can be acquired only after years of specialized training.

Belief

Without years don't have ability to judge of specialized → greatness of literary training works

Facts

Without years can't become of specialized → a literature training professor

vast reading no access to years of majority of public specialized training

Evaluate

All three claims have this "years of specialized training" as an overlapping idea. Do the conditionals chain together?

No, but if someone doesn't have the specialized training, we'll know two things about them - can't be a literature professor - don't have ability to judge greatness of lit works

(A trap answer is probably going to try to make some conditional or over-quantified relationship between those two ideas)

Since we're told that most of the reading public doesn't have access to this training, we can infer two things ...

Goal

... Let's look for what we get when we apply the two conditional rules to the fact in the last sentence:

Vast majority of the reading public can't be a literature professor. Vast majority of the reading public can't judge the greatness of literary works.

6.

Which one of the following statements must be true if what John's literature professor believes is true?

  1. John's literature professor can judge

    Unsupported

    This answer would require that we know, "All literature professors can judge the greatness of literary works". We don't know that. We know that all literature professors have the years of specialized training require to judge greatness, but this answer choice is acting like we were told, "If you have the specialized training, then you can judge greatness". Instead, we were only told, "If you don't have the specialized training, then you can't judge greatness". Formally, we were given these relationships Lit Pro → Training Judge Greatness → Training And this answer is trying to derive this relationship Lit Pro → Judge Greatness

    21% picked this

  2. Anyone who is not a

    Unknown Group

    This answer says something must be true of every single person in the universe who isn't a literature professor. Do any of these claims talk about every who isn't a literature professor. No. So we can't derive this idea. We can prove this answer could be false by thinking, "couldn't there be someone who has years of specialized training but isn't a literature professor?" If so, that person could be someone who "isn't a literature professor" but who still can judge the greatness of literary works. Formally, we were given these relationships ~Training → ~literature professor ~Training → ~Judge Greatness And this answer is trying to derive this relationship ~ literature professor → ~ Judge Greatness which, of course we can't. That would just be inventing a causal arrow between the outcomes of those two statements.

    4% picked this

  3. Specialized training like that received

    Out of Scope: should

    On Most Supported questions, we might occasionally pick an answer using "should" language, even when none of the claims used "should" language (if the paragraph establishes that something is bad / toxic / injurious, it supports the claim that you shouldn't do it .... if something is good / beneficial, it supports the claim that you should do it). But that would never be the case on Must Be True. You can't derive "should / should not" ideas unless you're given that language in the paragraph.

    0% picked this

  4. Literature professors do not belong

    Too Strong

    We know that the vast majority of the public (let's say 98% of people) don't have access to specialized training, so they could not be literature professors. But the other 2% of the reading public does have access to specialized training, so they could still be literature professors.

    2% picked this

  5. Correct

    The vast majority of the

    Why this is right

    This is one of the two ideas we derived initially: Vast majority of the reading public can't be a literature professor. Vast majority of the reading public can't judge the greatness of literary works. By combining the last sentence with the first, vast majority no access to of the reading = specialized training public + no specialized → can't judge training greatness we can derive vast majority of the reading = can't judge greatness public

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

    73% 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