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
Break the argument into its conclusion and evidence, then do exactly what the question stem asks with that structure.
Answers that sound relevant to the topic but don't connect to the argument's actual reasoning.
Predict what a right answer must do, then test each choice against the conclusion-evidence gap.
Which one of the following principles, if valid, most strongly supports the editorial’s reasoning?
Early education reading programs should
Encouraging children to read challenging books does not play any role in this particular argument. We might think that a book being challenging has something to do with children viewing reading as a chore, but the argument never states that. This answer might sound like it somehow supports the conclusion, but it doesn't strengthen the link between the evidence and the conclusion.
1% picked this
Children will be more likely
Having children choose the books that they read does not play any role in this particular argument. The evidence discusses children reading more books because they're being paid to do it. What happens when children choose their own books is not relevant. This answer might sound like it somehow supports the conclusion, but it doesn't strengthen the link between the evidence and the conclusion.
2% picked this
Parents will usually play a
The argument never discusses exactly how parents or teachers are involved in the early reading programs. A comparison between the role of parents and the role teachers is irrelevant.
0% picked this
The goal of early education
Why this is right
This is one of those cases where the LSAT rewards us for reading very literally. The evidence discusses the possibility that kids will regard reading as a chore rather than as a source of intrinsic satisfaction. But the evidence presents this in a very factual way, and never actually states whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. We can strengthen the argument by stating that these reading programs should instill a love of reading in children. If they encourage children to view reading as an unsatisfying chore then the programs aren't achieving this goal, which is a reason to view them with suspicion.
Skill tested: Principle-Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
94% picked this
Improving children’s facility with reading
The evidence states that encouraging kids to read might cause them to view reading as a chore, not as something they intrinsically enjoy. This answer choice indicates that helping kids read will have the opposite result. We should also note that improving someone's facility with reading means to make reading easier. Making reading easier is not exactly the same as encouraging children to read. It's possible to encourage someone to do something even if the person finds it difficult.
3% picked this
Continue the review in LSAT Lab
Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.
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.