LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

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

 Administrator
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 8917
  • Joined: Feb 02, 2011
|
#98366
Complete Question Explanation

Method-Arguement Part. The correct answer choice is (A).

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice.

Answer choice (B):

Answer choice (C):

Answer choice (D):

Answer choice (E):

This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!
User avatar
 katnyc
  • Posts: 35
  • Joined: Dec 22, 2020
|
#100042
Hello, I was confused with this problem because I took this statement as a conclusion because of the word "must" I would like to know how can I avoid making mistakes like this because I can see how the conclusion is after the word "Thus" I wasnt too confident in eliminating both of these because there cant be two main conclusions. Can someone please help out
 Robert Carroll
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 1787
  • Joined: Dec 06, 2013
|
#100652
katnyc,

"Must" is an indicator of the certainty of a statement, and not a premise or conclusion indicator. Stimuli that don't even have arguments can have statements expressed using the word "must".

The first sentence of the stimulus is a conclusion - it's an intermediate conclusion. That has nothing to do with the word "must". Instead, it's an intermediate conclusion because there is evidence for it, but it itself is not the main conclusion. The second sentence of the stimulus supports the first sentence, but the first sentence supports the main conclusion. Thus, the first sentence is an intermediate conclusion, and answer choice (A) is one way to describe that.

Robert Carroll
User avatar
 LawSchoolDream
  • Posts: 57
  • Joined: Jan 18, 2024
|
#105391
Hi could you please break down the premise and conclusion of this argument? I chose D because I felt it was the overall conclusion of the argument.
 Robert Carroll
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 1787
  • Joined: Dec 06, 2013
|
#105397
LawSchoolDream,

The main conclusion of the argument is the last sentence. The first sentence is an intermediate conclusion, and the second sentence provides evidence for that.

In brief:

"The transition must have been traumatic. Why? Because there would be more injuries and worse nutrition. Given all these considerations, it follows that people doing something so traumatic were motivated by the benefits of the transition."

Consider what the author wants to prove. The author wants to prove that those transitioning were motivated by benefits. Why? Well, because it was actually hard to transition - people aren't going to transition lightly, since there would be costs to go with those benefits. Why was it hard to transition? Because of the injuries and nutrition issues. So:

Injuries and nutrition make the transition hard, which means those transitioning must have been motivated by benefits.

Robert Carroll

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

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