Logical Reasoning

PT154 · S4 · Q13 Lindsey: There are, of course

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

Lindsey: There are, of course, many poets with cheerful dispositions; however, those I have met have much more often been disposed to melancholy.

Conclusion (Thus / conclude)

If the poets I've met are representative of poets generally, one can reasonably conclude that many poets are made melancholy by writing poetry.

Evidence

The poets I have met are more often disposed to melancholy, and an activity as profound and engrossing as writing poetry can be depressing.

Evaluate

The author supports his conclusion that "writing poetry makes many poets melancholy" with two pieces of info: 1. the sample of poets he knows mostly include melancholy poets 2. there's a reason why there would be a plausible causal path from writing poetry to being melancholy (poetry --> profound and engrossing activity --> can be depressing --> melancholy).

Goal

The question stem is asking us about the final claim, with is a Supporting Idea. It supports the middle sentence, which is the conclusion.

13.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in Lindsey's argument by the claim that an activity as profound and engrossing as writing poetry can be depressing?

It is a premise offered
Out of Scope: Intermediate Conclusion
This answer correctly identifies our claim as a Premise, but this answer choice also incorrectly accuses the argument of having an Intermediate Conclusion, because it's saying, "Premise A --> Premise B --> Main Conclusion", which would make Premise B an Intermediate Conclusion. This argument didn't have any Intermediate Conclusion. There are two separate reasons given to support the idea that "writing poetry makes many poets melancholy": 1. most of the poets I know are melancholy 2. an engrossing activity like writing poetry can be depressing Neither 1 nor 2 support each other. They each just provide independent support for the main conclusion.
7% picked this
It is a premise for
Out of Scope: Intermediate Conclusion
This answer correctly identifies our claim as a Premise, but this answer choice, like (A), incorrectly accuses the argument of having an Intermediate Conclusion, because it's saying there is a Premise supported by another Premise. That would make the former Premise count as an Intermediate Conclusion. This argument didn't have any Intermediate Conclusion. There are two separate reasons given to support the idea that "writing poetry makes many poets melancholy": 1. most of the poets I know are melancholy 2. an engrossing activity like writing poetry can be depressing Neither 1 nor 2 support each other. They each just provide independent support for the main conclusion. Since this answer choice is specifically calling our claim (the final sentence) a premise for which another premise is offered as evidence, we could just ask ourselves, "Was there evidence provided for this final sentence?" Why should we believe that, "an activity as profound and engrossing as writing poetry can be depressing"? Did the argument offer any evidence to support that? No. Instead, it just prefaced that premise by saying "as everyone knows", which indicates it's just a commonly accepted axiom that the author doesn't feel any need to support.
2% picked this
It is the overall conclusion
Wrong Role
The middle sentence, adorned with a "Thus" and a "one can conclude", is the main conclusion. The final claim of the paragraph, on Role and Main Conclusion, will be the main conclusion only about 10-15% of the time. We go into those two question types specifically reminding ourselves not to expect the conclusion at the end (in 85-90% of cases, the conclusion on those two question types is found earlier than at least one of its supporting ideas).
1% picked this
It clarifies a claim made
Support vs. Clarification
Clarifying a claim is different from supporting it. Clarifying a claim just makes a claim clearer to understand, on its own. It doesn't provide a basis for believing it. If I say, "I think the Lakers are going to win it all next year", then clarifying that statement would be saying something like, "and by win it all, I mean win the NBA Finals next June." By clarifying my first claim, I haven't given anyone any reason for believing it; I've simply gotten more specific about what my claim is. Supporting the claim would be saying something like, "After all, this will be Lebron James's last season at the peak of his abilities, so he will really be trying his hardest."
12% picked this
Correct
It is a premise offered
Why this is right
This answer correctly identifies our claim as a Premise. Direct support means that a claim sounds like a reason for believing the Conclusion all on its own. (This is contrasted with indirect support, which means that a claim supports the Main Conclusion by directly supporting an Intermediate Conclusion). This argument offered two separate reasons to support the idea that "writing poetry makes many poets melancholy": 1. most of the poets I know are melancholy 2. an engrossing activity like writing poetry can be depressing So, yes, our claim is a premise that directly supports the main conclusion. (On other problems, they might call this sort of thing "a premise that provides partial support for the conclusion", and that term just means that there's more than one premise).
Skill tested: Role · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
78% 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