LR Question 15 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Speaker: Like many contemporary critics, Smith…
QUESTION TYPE: Sufficient Assumption
CONCLUSION: Smith doesn’t understand her own words.
REASONING: If Smith is right, we should only be able to understand an author’s meaning if we understand their social circumstances.
ANALYSIS: Smith gave exactly one conditional premise. I’ll draw that premise and its contrapositive:
Understand meaning ➞ Know social circumstances
Know social circumstances ➞ Understand meaning
The speakers wants to prove that Smith doesn’t understand her own words. So use the contrapositive above: if Smith doesn’t know her social circumstances, then she can’t understand her own meaning.
All of the wrong answers are nonsense. Three of them talk about “intended” meaning, which wasn’t mentioned in the stimulus. The other answer talks about a theory lacking insight. But the stimulus was about lacking insight into social circumstances.
Don’t choose nonsense answers that have nothing to do with the stimulus.
___________
- The argument didn’t talk about “intended” meaning. This answer is just gibberish.
- CORRECT. See the analysis above. This answer provides the sufficient condition of the conditional statement, which lets us prove the necessary condition, which is the conclusion.
- The argument didn’t talk about intended meaning. Like A, this answer is total nonsense.
- This just jumbles together random words from the stimulus. The stimulus talked about lacking insight into social circumstances. The stimulus didn’t talk about theories lacking insight.
- Another nonsense answer. The stimulus didn’t talk about intended meaning!
Recap: The question begins with “Speaker: Like many contemporary critics”. It is a Sufficient Assumption question. To practice more Sufficient Assumption questions, have a look at the LSAT Questions by Type page.
More Resources for Sufficient Assumption Questions
- Conditional Reasoning Article: Learn about conditional statements.
- LR Diagrams Guide: Learn how to draw LR diagrams.
- Intro to Conditional Reasoning: Learn conditional reasoning basics.
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Sufficient Assumption questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers sufficient assumption questions.
Hi! What role does the sentence “Thus, if she is right…of Smith’s statements” play? The conclusion says “This, in turn, suggests…”, meaning it is a supporting evidence. However, I don’t find that part would support the conclusion because it is talking about “we” while the conclusion about “Smith”.
It’s a sub-conclusion, meaning that:
(1) It serves as a conclusion to earlier premises in the stimulus, and
(2) It itself serves as a premise to the overall conclusion off the stimulus
The argument of the stimulus goes something like this:
(1) Smith argues that the “true meaning” of an author’s words can only be understood via investigating their social circumstances
(2) Smith herself is an author
Therefore, if Smith is right, it is only possible to know the true meaning of Smith’s words via understanding her social circumstances
(3) Missing Premise, found in the answer choices
Therefore, Smith herself does not understand the true meaning of her own words
Could you please elaborate on the conditional statement in the premise of the argument.
The conditional you provided is: meaning -> social circumstances. But I believed it to be the other way around. The premise states: “Thus, if she is right we should be able, at least in part, to discern from Smith’s social circumstances the “true meaning” of Smith’s statements.” A diagram of this premise would be as follows: Social circumstances -> meaning.
I don’t see what I’m missing. Your guidance would be greatly appreciated.
Akhil.