Logical Reasoning

PT150 · S3 · Q25 Essayist writing in 2012: At its onset

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

Essayist writing in 2012: At its onset, a new medium is limited to carrying content from the old medium it replaces.

Conclusion (thus)

It is too early to understand the e-book as a medium.

Evidence (since)

At its onset, a new medium is limited to carrying content from the old medium it replaces. E-books are in that early phase and take their content from print books. They haven't taken their ultimate form.

Evaluate

We try prephrase Principle-Strengthen with some sort of "If evidence, then conclusion" type linking idea.

We're ultimately trying to prove that it's too early to understand the e-book, so a correct answer will need to be giving us some rule about how soon we can understand a medium. What's the main reason the author thinks we can't yet understand e-books?

It's borrowing content from printed books. It hasn't reached its final form (content hasn't been developed specifically for e-books yet).

Goal

Let's get rid of answers that aren't rules about "when you can understand a medium". The outcome should be saying "can't understand it yet" or something like that.

The trigger will probably reference one of the things we were told about e-books:

- not taken ultimate form - only has borrowed content (no native content yet)

25.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the essayist's reasoning?

  1. A medium cannot be fully

    Bad Evidence Match

    This says "if you don't understand the prior medium, you can't understand this one". So the outcome looks good. But did the evidence establish this trigger? Did we hear that "we don't understand print books, as a medium"? No. Since we can't fire the trigger, this answer goes nowhere.

    6% picked this

  2. No electronic medium can resemble

    Bad Evidence Match

    This would help support a conclusion about whether or not one medium resembles another. We're trying to support a conclusion about whether a medium can be understood.

    2% picked this

  3. The ultimate form that a

    Bad Evidence Match

    This would help support a conclusion about what ultimate form a medium will take. We're trying to support a conclusion about whether a medium can be understood.

    6% picked this

  4. Correct

    A medium cannot be understood

    Why this is right

    This gives us a rule that sounds like, "If you haven't observed the content of a medium evolve, then you can't understand the medium". The outcome is a great match for our conclusion. Do we know that "we haven't seen the content of e-books evolve"? Sure! They are in an early phase where they are just carrying content from print books. They have yet evolved into their ultimate form.

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

    81% picked this

  5. One medium can replace another

    Bad Evidence Match

    This would help support a conclusion about whether or not one medium will replace another. We're trying to support a conclusion about whether a medium can be understood.

    6% 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