Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Medium

PT158 S1 P2 Q9 ExplanationTrickster vs. Picaro

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension question.

TopicsAnalogySociety

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Passage

Native American stories often feature a character called the trickster, a comic figure who has both mortal weaknesses and supernatural powers. Recently, the term "trickster" has also appeared in criticism of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century European literature, particularly in reference to the picaresque novel and its central character, the picaro (Spanish for "rogue"): and both live on the peripheries of society and are morally flawed.

Yet closer examination reveals that applying the term "trickster" to both characters obscures essential differences between them. The picaro—typically a male character—operates primarily as an agent of satire. Most commonly, the picaro's adventures begin when he spontaneously yields to his own roguish, though innocent, impulses. The picaro indulges in vices and follies freedom of the picaro and the hypocrisy of the safely ensconced social being—that the satire occurs.

But the trickster, usually an animal acting as a human agent, does not serve a satiric function. For while the picaresque novel takes place in and satirizes human society, the trickster operates in the ahistorical world of myth; where the targets of the picaresque novel are the idiosyncrasies and inconsistencies of a makes the trickster fundamentally antisocial, even anarchic, all the while helping listeners to avoid these flaws.

It is this combination of mythic setting and mortal weakness that determines the particular targets of the trickster's comic high jinks: the eternal and unchanging foibles of mortal beings. In one story, for example, a coyote trickster falls in love with a star. The trickster is quite tenacious and human, even though reaching beyond proper limits, but all the while they recognize in themselves the trickster's extravagant hopes.

What this question is testing

Analogy

Anticipate

The author's whole thesis in one sentence: That is like calling a dolphin a fish because it swims. The surface features match but the deeper reality is completely different. We need an analogy that captures exactly this mistake: classifying something by its costume when its DNA tells a different story.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
9.

Based on the author's view in the passage, applying the term "trickster" to the character of the picaro is most similar to which

Answer choices, explained

  1. Weak Match5% picked this

    claiming that someone supports an extreme political view when it is clear that the person

    This gets correct that we should be hearing about a "dumb / inappropriate match", but the logical similarities end there. The difference between extreme and centrist is just degree, not type. The author wasn't saying that trickster or picaro were a more extreme degree of the other one. He was saying they were just two different things.

  2. Correct75% picked this

    characterizing the panda as a bear based on superficial similarities when a deeper understanding shows it to be

    Why this is right

    Here's an answer that's saying, "we shouldn't characterize a panda as a bear, just because superficially they are similar", which would match up with the author saying, "we shouldn't characterize a picaro story as a trickster story, even though they're superficially similar." And then this also matches the idea that a deeper understanding shows you they're different. A deeper understanding shows that a panda really isn't similar to bear (it's similar to a raccoon). The passage doesn't have that third ingredient of 'raccoon', but we can interpret this part of the answer to mean "a panda is quite different from a bear", just like "a trickster story is quite different from a picaro story". Were we told that trickster and picaro are superficially similar? Yes, in the last sentence of the first paragraph: both P and T are heroes of adventures, both live on the margins and are morally flawed Were we told that a deeper understanding would make us see that the panda is not really a bear (a picaro is not really a trickster)? Yes, in the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph: closer examination reveals = a deeper understanding shows The fact that "superficial similarities" and "deeper understanding shows" match up with the two most important sentences of the passage is why this beats (D). Purpose Pivots: but, yet, however, recently Last sentence of 1st paragraph -- Recently First sentence of second paragraph -- Yet

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

  3. Bad Match2% picked this

    calling a court decision a milestone as a way of suggesting metaphorically that the

    This doesn't even get off the ground since calling something a milestone because it's significant is an appropriate use of that metaphor. We're looking for an inappropriate use of a term (since the author thinks applying trickster to picaro is inappropriate).

  4. Weaker Match12% picked this

    classifying a species of pine tree as an evergreen even though many of its needles turn brown and

    This is worth considering, since it would be inappropriate (or at least an outlier case) to classify a pine species as evergreen, if its needles turn brown and fall off during certain seasons. How can it be evergreen if it's sometimes brown? But the rest of this answer choice doesn't match any logical relationship in the passage as well as (B) does. The objection in (B), like in the passage, is that "even though they're superficially similar, closer examination reveals they're very difference". The objection here in (D) is like, "we shouldn't call X a type of Y since the behavior of X contradicts the definition of Y". (We can't call this pine species an evergreen since the fact that it sometimes turns brown contradicts the idea that it's evergreen.)

  5. Bad Match6% picked this

    describing a common weed as aggressive because it outcompetes certain garden flowers for

    This doesn't even get off the ground since calling something aggressive because it outcompetes its peers is an appropriate use of a term. We're looking for an inappropriate use of a term (since the author thinks applying trickster to picaro is inappropriate).

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