LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

Get expert LSAT preparation and law school admissions advice from PowerScore Test Preparation.

  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: Jun 12, 2017
Conclusion: Anderson did not take success for granted.
Premise#1 (support): Anderson struggled early in life.
Premise#2 (support): All who struggle early in life keep a good perspective.

What I expected to see:
SEL :arrow: GP :arrow: NOT SFG

However, I have read the explanation on pg 339 again and again only to find myself questioning why premise #2 is not the conclusion? Any ideas anyone?
Thank you
User avatar
 Dave Killoran
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 4426
  • Joined: Mar 25, 2011
Hi Sayhey,

Thanks for the question! One of the tipoffs that the first sentence is the conclusion is the phrase at the beginning of the second sentence, "We know this because..." that's an indication that we are about to get the reasons for why that is the case, and those reasons are the same as premises. And, that second sentence then contains two separate reasons (joined bu the "and").

Also keep in mind that the reason the first sentence doesn't feel like a valid conclusion is that it isn't. there's a big hole in the argument, which is one reason they've asked a justify question—they want us to fill that hole and make the argument sound more reasonable.

Please let me know if that helps. Thanks!

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

Analyze and track your performance with our Testing and Analytics Package.