Logical Reasoning

PT155 · S4 · Q17 Legislator: University humanities departments

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

Legislator: University humanities departments bring in less tuition and grant money than science departments.

Conclusion (thus)

It is a mistake for universities to cut humanities departments when facing budget shortfalls.

Intermediate Conclusion (as a result)

Humanities departments subsidize science departments.

Intermediate Conclusion

Humanities departments bring in more money than they spend (whereas science departments spend more than they bring in).

Evidence (because)

Teaching and research cost significantly less in humanities than in sciences.

Evaluate

We're being asked about the second claim in the paragraph, which is prefaced by a because, so we know it provides support for the other half of the sentence its in.

The conclusion it provides support for is then supporting the "As a result" conclusion in the 3rd sentence, which is then supporting the "Thus" main conclusion in the final sentence.

Goal

Let's look for something resembling PREMISE / SUPPORT, and then when it comes to the multiple intermediate conclusions after that, we'll see how much the answer choices force us to care.

17.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the legislator's argument by the claim that teaching and research cost significantly less in the humanities than in the sciences?

It is offered as support
Opposite
The alleged stereotype is that "humanities freeload on science", but the fact that it costs significantly less to teach/research humanities than science goes against that stereotype.
3% picked this
It is an alleged stereotype
Wrong Role
The alleged stereotype ("the typical characterization") is found in the 3rd sentence. We're being asked about the first claim in the 2nd sentence.
1% picked this
Correct
It is put forward as
Why this is right
Sure, this is saying that our claim plays a supporting / explanatory role. Given that humanities departments bring in less money than science departments, how could we explain the premise that "humanities departments bring in more money than they spend, whereas science departments spend more than they bring in?" Well, our claim helps to explain that --- teaching and research cost way less in humanities, so even though humanities brings in less revenue, its expenses are low enough that it's still profitable. Part of what may throw people off about this answer is that we might have preferred to say "our claim is a premise that supports an intermediate conclusion". That is true, but unfortunately an intermediate conclusion is both a premise and a conclusion. It's a conclusion because it is supported, but it is a premise because it provides support. On one Role question, they even called an Intermediate Conclusion by the same of "supported premise", whereas what we commonly call "premises" in LSAT class are "unsupported premises".
Skill tested: Role · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
80% picked this
It is an intermediate conclusion
Wrong Role
It is not an intermediate conclusion, because no support is provided for it. To test whether something is an intermediate conclusion, we can ask ourselves, "why should we believe _____ ?" Why should we believe that ... teaching and research cost way less in humanities than in the sciences? [crickets] The author didn't provide any reasons why. Reasons why would have sounded like, "After all, humanities teachers usually only have a masters whereas science teachers usually have PhD's, which command higher salaries. Research in humanities involves cheap resources like books, whereas research in science involves expensive resources like telescopes / microscopes / chemistry labs."
6% picked this
It is one of many
Contradicted: independent support
Saying that there are many claims, each presented as independent support for the overall conclusion is in effect denying that there are any Intermediate Conclusions in this argument. From keywords alone we can tell there are two Intermediate Conclusions. Because Claim 1, Claim 2. As a result, Claim 3. Thus, Claim 4. Claims 2, 3, and 4 were all supported conclusions, so it's not correct to say the argument was one big conclusion and a lot of premises: Claim 4. After all, claims 1, 2, and 3.
9% 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