Logical Reasoning

PT157 · S2 · Q22 Because of the ubiquity of television

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

Because of the ubiquity of television in modern households, few children today spend their free time reading stories, which lack the visual appeal of flashy television programs.

Conclusion (thus)

Few children today will develop a lifelong interest in literature.

Evidence

Few children today spend their free time reading stories.

Evaluate

Since the premise and conclusion are such parallel claims, we're just doing this sort of analysis:

Few children are X. Thus, few children are Y. assumes: If X, then Y

However, it's a little misleading to write the missing link as, .

Why? Because statements using FEW are negative statements. We understand them much better when we translate from negative into positive.

These are the three negative to positive translations we should have memorized: No A's are B = All A's are ~B Few A's are B = Most A's are ~B Not all A's are B = Some A's are ~B

Translated, the argument is saying,

So the missing link getting us from what we know about most kids today to what we want to know about most kids today would sound like this:

As an analogy, suppose you heard this argument:

You wouldn't say that author is assuming even though it kind of looks like that's the gap.

You have to rephrase these statements. What do we know about Pete's friends from the evidence? they didn't score higher than 150.

What is the conclusion claiming about them? They won't get into Yale.

Thus, the correct assumption would be, .

Goal

Let's look for the predicted missing link or its contrapositive:

~ spend free time reading → ~ lifelong interest in lit lifelong interest in lit → spend free time reading

We can also eliminate any answer that doesn't include the idea of developing a lifelong interest in literature, since that's the New Concept in the Conclusion

22.

The conclusion drawn above follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

  1. No children who spend their

    Negation

    This is saying, "If you spend your free time reading stories, you won't fail to develop a lifelong interest in literature." In other words, "if you spend free time reading, you will develop lifelong interest." That's an illegal negation of what we want. The argument is talking about kids who don't spend their free time reading, so this rule wouldn't apply to them. A correct answer on Sufficient Assumption has to interact with the evidence in a way that lets us derive other ideas (in particular, the Conclusion). If we see an answer presenting a rule that wouldn't get triggered by the stuff we were talking about, then it's useless. It goes nowhere. This guy is sitting in the (A) spot, knowing the prediction we made, and just trying to fool us with an illegal negation of that prediction.

    17% picked this

  2. Correct

    Only those people who currently

    Why this is right

    Only indicates the right side idea, so initially this looks like "If develop lifelong interest, then spend free time reading." Naturally, we gotta contrapose the correct answer to see it the way we want it (the correct answer is usually written in contrapositive form, so that it's less appealing to us at first blush). "If someone is not currently spending their free time reading stories, then they won't develop a lifelong interest in literature." We were told in the evidence that most kids today do not spend their free time reading stories. That fact triggers this rule and allows us to derive the conclusion, that most kids today will not develop a lifelong interest in literature.

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

    52% picked this

  3. No children who grow up

    Unrelated to Goal

    We need only glance at this answer to eliminate it, since it doesn't have the New Concept in the Conclusion, developing a lifelong interest in literature. We can't derive a conclusion about that concept if neither the evidence not the answer choice provide that concept.

    4% picked this

  4. Few people who watch a

    Bad Evidence Match

    This answer says, "Most people who watch a great deal of TV will not develop a lifelong interest in literature." We're trying to prove that most kids today won't develop a lifelong interest in literature. Do we know that kids today watch "a great deal of TV"? Nope. We know the presence of TV in their house has causally led to not spending free time reading stories, but we have no way to quantify how much TV is being watched, so we don't know that kids today watch "a great deal" of TV. Even if we did, this rule wouldn't be powerful enough to prove the conclusion, because it's about most people, not about children. Most people in the world are not children. So a claim that says, "most people who watch lots of TV will not develop X" doesn't have to pertain to children at all. It could, but it doesn't have to. We need to be guaranteed the conclusion, so a squishy idea like "most people" is not going to guarantee us a statement about "most kids today".

    21% picked this

  5. Few children who spend their

    Unrelated to Goal

    We need only glance at this answer to eliminate it, since it doesn't have the New Concept in the Conclusion, developing a lifelong interest in literature. We can't derive a conclusion about that concept if neither the evidence not the answer choice provide that concept.

    5% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

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