Logical Reasoning

PT154 · S2 · Q18 Anthropologists have long debated whether

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

Anthropologists have long debated whether the customs of a culture invariably function to preserve it.

Conclusion

If it's correct to define culture as the totality of customs practiced by those whose culture it is, then the customs of a culture necessarily function to preserve it, even if just in a trivial sense.

Evidence (because)

Under this definition of culture, if a culture were to abandon any custom, then by definition it would destroy that culture.

Evaluate

This author is making a weird, nerdy argument that will make nerdy logicians snap their fingers in nerdy approval.

Anthropologists are debating whether the customs in a culture help to preserve that culture. (i.e. does celebrating Thanksgiving help to preserve American culture?)

The author is not engaging with the substantive truth of whether customs are a way of reinforcing and solidifying cultural identity. Instead, the author is interested in just making an observation about what is technically true, in a vacuous sense.

Suppose you define a culture as .

Culture X does customs A, B, and C. Culture Y does customs A, B, and D.

Even though they have customs in common, the totality of ABC is different from the totality of ABD, so according to this definition they are each different cultures.

The author's cute observation is that if Culture X were to drop custom C, then they would only do customs A and B. Thus, they would no longer be Culture X, since that culture was defined as the ABC set of customs.

A culture with an AB set of customs is different from a culture with an ABC set of customs. Thus, getting rid of custom C made the group that used to be Culture X no longer be Culture X.

Abandoning that custom destroyed their status as Culture X, so, technically, having custom C preserves Culture X.

Goal

We're being asked about the 2nd sentence. This provides a definition of "culture" as "unique set of customs" so that the author can make her cute mathematical argument.

We could maybe call it a premise, because the author is definitely using it in tandem with the final claim in order to derive the conclusion. But it feels like we could also call it a background claim that the author just scoops up and says,

The answer will probably sound relational (not as simple as premise / conclusion / background / opposing) and convey the idea that the author is just saying, .

18.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the argument by the statement that under a certain conception of culture, the abandonment of any custom by a culture's members would constitute that culture's destruction?

It is the main conclusion
Wrong Ingredient
The main conclusion is the first half of the last sentence, which we can tell because it's supported with the Support Indicator "because" (FABS = for, after all, since, because).
5% picked this
It is a definition of
Not a Technical Term
It is a definition, but is "culture" a technical term? It seems like a basic, familiar noun. Technical terms are like "glissando, depth of field, covariation"; they are terms that people outside a certain field would not necessarily know.
2% picked this
Correct
It is a claim that
Why this is right
Is the conclusion conditional? Sure, it says, If this definition → customs preserve culture is correct at least in a technical sense Does the definition in the 2nd sentence used to support this conclusion? Yes, in the sense that the premise (the final claim) only makes sense when that definition is applied to it. If we weren't using that definition as our operative definition of "culture", then we wouldn't accept that "abandoning any custom would by definition destroy that culture".
Skill tested: Role · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
79% picked this
It is a claim that
Bad Conclusion Match
The author is not concluding or suggesting that we should understand culture as a totality of customs. Whenever an author says "If X is true, then Y", the author is not in any way hinting that she thinks X is true or should be true. Furthermore, in this case, the author is showing that if we used this definition of culture then we would get the absurd implication that any time a culture decides to drop or add a custom, that entire culture ceases to exist. (Who would think we should define culture in a way that would mean we're constantly losing and gaining cultures based on slight changes).
12% picked this
It is a claim ascribed
Not Ascribed / Not Called Trivial
The second sentence does not make clear who has proposed this definition. The fact that anthropologists are discussed in the first sentence doesn't mean that they proposed this definition. And the author isn't dismissing the definition as trivial. The author is saying, "If this definition were correct, then we could get this implication, which means that in some trivial way the idea that customs preserve culture would be true."
2% 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