Logical Reasoning

PT150 · S3 · Q23 Fine short story writers are unlikely

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

Fine short story writers are unlikely to become great novelists.

Conclusion

Fine short story writers are unlikely to become great novelists.

Evidence

Fine short story writers have the ability to weave together many small details.

Novelists must focus on larger matters.

Only a few writers can do both weave together many small details and focus on larger matters.

Evaluate

Because of all the repeating terms (short story writers, novelists, weave together small, focus on larger are all mentioned at least twice), we can probably turn this into algebra to make it easier to compare to answers.

Conclusion: A's are unlikely to become B. Premise 1: A's are good at X. Premise 2: B's need to be good at Y. Premise 3: It's unlikely to be good at X and Y

Goal

Look for a conclusion that is saying "A's are unlikely to be B". The premises should then tell us a signature quality of A, a signature quality of B, and that those two qualities rarely coincide.

23.

The reasoning in which one of the following is most similar to the reasoning above?

  1. Engineers can never design an

    Bad Conclusion Match

    This conclusion starts off too certain: Engineers can never do X We want a conclusion / argument that's trying to prove something is unlikely, it probably won't happen. We can bail four words in! (as long as we're confident that first claim was the conclusion)

    5% picked this

  2. Historians who write grand histories

    Bad Evidence Match

    The first claim is properly saying "A is unlikely to be B". But there's only one premise! We thought we would need three. Sometimes they cleverly get the job done with fewer, but from 3 to 1 is tough. We need evidence saying, "Here's a signature quality of historians who write grand histories", "here's a quality that goes with people who make many original archival discoveries", and "these two qualities rarely overlap".

    5% picked this

  3. Good painters cannot become good

    Bad Conclusion Match

    This conclusion starts off too certain: Good painters cannot be X We want a conclusion / argument that's trying to prove something is unlikely, it probably won't happen. We can bail four words in! (as long as we're confident that first claim was the conclusion)

    3% picked this

  4. Because of the vast amount

    Bad Evidence Match

    The first claim is properly saying "A is unlikely to be B". But the reason that A is unlikely to be B isn't that each field's signature qualities rarely overlaps. Instead, it's that in order for A to do B, it would require C and D, and most people don't have D. In order for a person to be a successful specialist, it would require vast medical knowledge, which would require a lot of motivation, and most people don't have that motivation. This is saying, "Most people don't have 1 certain quality", whereas the original argument was saying "Most people don't have 2 certain qualities in common".

    11% picked this

  5. Correct

    Those who excel at one

    Why this is right

    The first claim is properly saying "A is unlikely to be B". We need evidence saying, "Here's a signature quality of people who excel at one sport", "here's a quality of people who excel at another sport", and "these two qualities rarely overlap". They don't give us three pieces of evidence like we had in the original; they manage to package it all into one idea, but it's the same concept. This one is also more vague and generic, because we're not naming which two sports or which quality is necessary for success in each case. But this is the only argument operating on the principle of "X is unlikely to be Y, because the thing you associate with X rarely coincides with the thing you associate with Y". This correct answer shows the limitations / danger of believing too tightly in an algebraic recipe. Whenever we use diagramming on this test (for conditional logic or for parallel abstractions), we run the risk of being a prisoner of our mathematical left brain thinking and less able to use our holistic meaning right brain thinking.

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

    77% 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