Logical Reasoning

PT154 · S4 · Q15 Many popular novels have stylistic

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

Many popular novels have stylistic elements commonly associated with journalistic writing.

Conclusion

Using a journalistic writing style makes it more likely a novel will be popular.

Evidence

Many popular novels have journalistic writing styles. And many authors of popular novels began their careers as journalists.

Evaluate

Two things stick out to me: 1. The evidence is just citing data points in which "journalistic writing style" and "popular novel" appear together. And then the conclusion posits a causal connection: using a journalistic style increases your chances of having a popular novel.

2. The number of data points isn't even that compelling. Many? So like, at least ten popular novels had a journalistic style? At least ten popular novelists started out as journalists? Cool, bro. I'm guessing many NBA players studied French in high school. Does studying French in high school increase my chances of playing in the NBA? (b/c if so ... I'm re-enrolling in high school!)

Goal

Find something clowning this dude's weak "many" data points, or something pointing out the illicit move from "these things are sometimes associated with each other" to .

15.

The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that it

  1. takes something that is required

    Wrong Flaw

    This describes the famous flaw Necessary vs. Sufficient, which is what happens when an author presents a conditional logic relationship and then uses that rule in an illegal Opposite or Backwards fashion. There were no conditional relationships in this argument.

    23% picked this

  2. takes for granted that most

    Too Strong

    Too Strong: most Out of Scope: could The author is only trying to prove the existence of a causal relationship. He isn't implying that it's an option for most journalists, so he doesn't need to assume anything about 51% (most) vs. 49% (most-not). Beyond the frequency specificity, the idea of could / should is all out of scope. The author is just saying "doing X increases your chances of Y". We can say "taking a 3 month vacation in Bermuda would help lower your blood pressure". That doesn't mean we're saying people should do that, or that most people could do that.

    1% picked this

  3. fails to specify exactly what

    Never a Flaw

    I've never seen a correct answer that asks for a specific measurement, definition, value, or asks to provide specific names of people generally cited. I couldn't tell you exactly what is required to be a good friend, but I still might be able to say with confidence that being an empathetic listener increases your chances of being a good friend.

    12% picked this

  4. Correct

    fails to consider how many

    Why this is right

    This is calling out our dude's weak-sauce "many" data points. If I told you that many of the richest lawyers in the country went to a school on the west coast, are you thinking, "Hmm, maybe I should go to school on the west coast"? Not really. If you say, "Many of the richest lawyers in the country went to a school on the east coast. Many of the richest lawyers went to a school in the midwest", you're effectively neutralizing any west-coast persuasive power my statement had. Meanwhile, if I had said something like, "Even though most law students go to school on the east coast, most of the richest lawyers went to school on the west coast", that would have a persuasive asymmetry. So this answer is pointing out the objection we can make by saying, "Aren't many journalistic style novels unsuccessful? So couldn't we argue the exact same thing you did: Many novels written in a journalistic style have been unsuccessful. Thus, writing in a journalistic styles decreases your chances of having a successful novel."

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

    63% picked this

  5. takes the fact that a

    Out of Scope

    Nothing in the argument is talking about whether or not these novels are well-written.

    1% 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