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: 8916
  • Joined: Feb 02, 2011
|
#34988
Complete Question Explanation

Justify the Conclusion—CE. The correct answer choice is (D)

In this stimulus, the author discusses a surprising effect of greater technological sophistication on
people’s enjoyment of video games. The author starts by giving us some video game background,
telling us that early on, video game players would typically control a simple icon when they played
the game. Now, because of advancements in the technical sophistication of video games, players are
controlling detailed human figures on the screen. But, the author tells us, since the players can see
that the figures they are controlling represent people other than themselves, it is hard for the players
to identify with the figures. Based on this claim, the author concludes that in this area, “the technical
sophistication of the newer video games often makes them less compelling to players.”

This is a Justify the Conclusion question, meaning the correct answer choice will prove the
conclusion is valid. To prove this conclusion, the correct answer choice will connect the term
“compelling,” which occurred without support for the first time in the conclusion, to the premise
regarding the difficulty players have in identifying with the figures. In other words, the answer
choice will say something like “video games are less compelling to players if it is hard for players to
identify with the figures they control.”

Answer choice (A): This answer choice does not prove that players often find the newer games
less compelling. Instead, it merely would prove that the older technique of having the game player
control a simple icon is completely out of style in newer games.

Answer choice (B): Here, the answer choice makes an irrelevant comparison between the older
games and the new ones. The conclusion was focused on the games being “less compelling”
generally, not less compelling than the older games. In other words, the conclusion is saying the
newer games are less compelling than they would be if the players could more easily connect with
the figures they control.

Answer choice (C): This answer choice is incorrect because it fails to address the conclusion that the
use of detailed human figures makes the games less compelling. Instead, this answer choice talks
about the fact that the human figures cannot by themselves make a game compelling.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. As discussed regarding the prephrase,
this answer choice essentially states the premise (i.e., players have a hard time identifying with the
figures) as a sufficient condition indicating that the conclusion must be true (i.e., that the game is less
compelling). This is a very common structure for a Justify the Conclusion correct answer choice.

Answer choice (E): This answer choice contains something close to the Mistaken Reversal of the
correct answer choice.
 vdantono22
  • Posts: 1
  • Joined: May 13, 2021
|
#89575
Would you be able to break down how we would apply the Justify Formula to the answer choices here?
 Robert Carroll
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 1787
  • Joined: Dec 06, 2013
|
#89584
vdantono,

The Justify Formula is implict throughout the discussion in the first post. The conclusion of this argument says that the technical sophistication of newer video games makes them "less compelling", a term not discussed in any way in the premises. Instead of considering how each answer choice, added to the premises, would form a set of sufficient premises to prove the conclusion, instead it cuts the analytic work down significantly to focus on the fact that the conclusion mentions something being "less compelling" and that the premises did not discuss any such concept at all. So an answer choice should always be judged on whether it can demonstrate that something is "less compelling". Because the premises don't address that, the premises do NOT lead to the conclusion yet; the only chance to add something to them to make the Justify Formula work is to have an answer that addresses the "less compelling" aspect of the conclusion.

The answer descriptions above are then focused on that idea.

Let us know if you have any further questions!

Robert Carroll

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

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