Logical Reasoning

PT154 · S4 · Q20 Critic: The more a novel

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

Critic: The more a novel appeals to the general public, the more money its author will make from it.

Conclusion

No serious novelist is motivated primarily by the desire to make money.

Evidence (since)

All serious novelists care about literary style.

The more a novel appeals to the general public, the more money its author will make.

Evaluate

CONVERSATIONAL TAKE The conclusion is making a connection between the concepts of "serious novelist" and "desire to make money".

Serious novelist is a concept the evidence defines / discusses. We know that all of them care about literary style.

Okay, so the author's conclusion is thinking that .

The evidence never defines "desire to make money", but it does talk about money. We know that more appealing novels make more money. So if you desired money, we know you'd try to make more appealing novels.

If you didn't desire money, you wouldn't care if you novels were appealing.

So, someone who cares about literary style doesn't care if their novels are appealing? Yes, the author must be thinking that serious novelists care about literary style, which they know the general public doesn't find appealing, so their books aren't as likely to make money. So the author infers that serious novelists must not be motivated by a desire to make money.

FORMAL TAKE The conclusion defines this logic path as our objective: Serious --------------------------> not primarily Novelist motiv by $

The premise gives us this part of the path:

Serious -----> cares about Novelist literary style

So the missing ingredient the answer needs to provide to complete our logic path:

cares about ----> not primarily literary style motiv by $

Goal

We need to prove "primary motivation is not money" about serious novelists, and the only we know for sure about serious novelists is that they care about literary style. Look for an answer that allows us to get from "cares about literary style" to "not primarily motivated by money".

20.

The conclusion of the critic's argument follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

  1. No novel written by a

    Unrelated to Goal

    Unrelated to Goal: doesn't have new term We're trying to prove that serious novelists "aren't motivated primarily by the desire to make money", but that idea never showed up in the evidence, so it must show up in the answer. If I'm trying to prove A = Z and the evidence gives me A = B and C = B, the correct answer has to provide a fact about Z. If I only have A = B, C = B, and some other fact that never mentions Z, then there's no way to combine those ingredients to derive A = Z.

    12% picked this

  2. Correct

    No novelist who cares about

    Why this is right

    This is what we predicted. The conclusion defines this logic path as our objective: Serious --------------------------> not primarily Novelist motiv by $ The premise gives us this part of the path: Serious -----> cares about Novelist literary style So the missing ingredient the answer needs to provide to complete our logic path: cares about ----> not primarily literary style motiv by $ That's precisely the conditional we get from this answer: "if you care about lit style, you're not motivated primarily by money".

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

    70% picked this

  3. No novelist whose novels exhibit

    Bad Trigger Match

    This answer is worth considering because it is a rule that allows us to prove "not motivated primarily by money", which is our entire goal. Can we trigger it? Does it apply to serious novelists? Do serious novelists' novels "exhibit good literary style"? We don't know. We were only told they "care about literary style" not that they were good at it.

    7% picked this

  4. Any novelist who is motivated

    Bad Trigger Match

    This answer is worth considering because it is a rule that allows us to prove "not motivated primarily by money", which is our entire goal. We have to write this in contrapositive form to use it for our conclusion: novels don't appeal → not motivated prim to the general public by desire for $$ Can we trigger it? Does it apply to serious novelists? Do we know that serious novelists' novels "don't appeal to the general public"? Nope. We were never told any facts about their novels. Notice how our conversational take on the argument makes this answer more appealing. Sufficient Assumption is not the time or place for using our conversational brain. It's rigid and mathematical.

    7% picked this

  5. Any novel that in fact

    Bad Conclusion Match

    We need a rule that allows us to prove "not motivated primarily by the desire to make money". This is a rule that can only prove "is motivated primarily by the desire to make money", so this answer is functionally useless to us.

    4% 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