Logical Reasoning

PT150 · S2 · Q8 One should not confuse a desire for money

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

One should not confuse a desire for money with a desire for material possessions.

Conclusion (should)

One should not confuse desire for money with desire for material possessions.

Evidence ( ____ . Moreover, ____. )

A lot of what money can buy is not material goods at all.

And even material goods themselves are usually not wanted for their own sake, but rather for the experiences or activities they make possible.

Evaluate

Whenever we're doing Main Conclusion or Role, we read the paragraph with the expectation that the Conclusion will usually occur earlier in the paragraph than the Evidence.

These questions love to put the conclusion in the opening sentence, or so make it a rebuttal sentiment that follows an attribution to some other view/claim.

So, priming our brain for such a paragraph, we can see the Opinion Indicator "should" in the opening sentence. Since this opinion isn't attributed to someone else, we assume it's our author's and tentatively nominate this first sentence as our Conclusion.

As we read on, we're wondering if the author is trying to convince us that "desiring money doesn't necessarily mean desiring possessions".

Indeed, she is. She provides two examples. They are linked with the word "moreover", which acts just like "and / furthermore". This shows that the author is pairing up multiple ideas that join together to support the conclusion.

(With the exception of one annoying problem in the 80s'), any time two claims are joined with "and" they are both premises.

Goal

We're being asked about the first sentence, so we're just looking for an answer to say that it's our Main Conclusion.

8.

The claim that one should not confuse a desire for money with a desire for material possessions plays which one of the following roles in the argument?

  1. It is a generalization from

    Wrong Role

    The conclusion is an inference that is drawn from the evidence. We're looking for an answer that means "main conclusion", but this answer is saying the first sentence is a generalization from which inferences are drawn. That would mean that conclusions were drawn on the basis of the first sentence, whereas we want to hear that the first sentence is the conclusion.

    2% picked this

  2. Correct

    It is the overall conclusion

    Why this is right

    This is what we were looking for. The first sentence was our author's opinion (should) and it was supported by two considerations joined by "moreover". Why should we believe that desiring money is not the same as desiring material possessions? 1. because a lot of what people spend money on isn't material possessions 2. because even when people buy material possessions, it isn't the possession itself they're after.

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

    90% picked this

  3. It is a subsidiary conclusion

    Wrong Role

    The first sentence was the Main Conclusion, and there was no subsidiary conclusion. Neither of the two premises offers support for the other. They are each just a separate way of demonstrating how we could desire money without necessarily desiring material possessions.

    5% picked this

  4. It is a recommendation that

    Opposite: counterexamples

    The author's two premises are more like examples of her conclusion. She is concluding that "it's possible to desire money without desiring material possessions", and her two premises are each conforming examples of that phenomenon.

    2% picked this

  5. It alludes to a problem

    Out of Scope: problem / solution

    Nothing in this conversation matches well with the concepts of problem or solution. The author is just trying to clarify a distinction between two things, desiring money and desiring material goods.

    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