Logical Reasoning · Main Conclusion

PrepTest 103 · Section 2 · Question 8

Phase 1 (your first ~400 questions): read the guidance, then answer. No clock.

Step 1 · Pre-Question Guidance · read this first

Question type

Main Conclusion

The one idea it tests

The first sentence states the boss claim; the rest explains why, including a middle-bun claim that supports it.

The basic logic

Look for the claim every other sentence works to prove. When the opening sentence gives a verdict and its reason together, split them: the reason is a middle bun, the verdict is the top bun.

Tiny words that decide it

“cannot”
“because”
“only if”

Playground logic

Kevin says the class honor-system candy jar cannot work because it assumes kids never take extra, which is false. The jar works only if kids take one, which takes self-control, but kids love candy. The top bun is 'the candy jar will not work'; 'kids are not that restrained' is a middle bun helping it.

Step 2 · The kid story

The Honor-System Candy Jar

Ms. Rivera set out a candy jar with a sign: 'Take one.' Kevin stood up, dinosaur backpack and all. 'This jar plan cannot work, because it assumes kids will not grab extra, and that is not true. It works only if every kid takes just one, and that takes major self-control. But kids want as much candy as they can get, especially when somebody else might get it first.' Tommy, who already had four candies in his pocket, said nothing. Lulu wrote on her clipboard: 'Kevin's point: the jar plan fails. Why: kids are not that restrained.' Priya nodded. 'His main point is about the plan. Everything else is the why.' Kevin added, 'Also, dinosaurs would take the whole jar.'

Step 3 · Try the model question

Kevin: The candy jar plan cannot work, since it relies on the idea that kids will hold back, which seems false. The plan works only if every kid takes just one piece, which requires self-control. But kids naturally want as much candy as they can get.

Which choice gives the point Kevin is mainly trying to prove?

Step 4 · The courtroom tale

The Self-Serve Parking Lot

At a city hearing, Mr. Whitfield argued against a self-pay parking lot with no gate. 'Your Honor, this lot will not succeed, because it assumes drivers will pay without being checked, and that is unlikely. It succeeds only if drivers drop coins in the box on their own, which takes honesty when no one is watching. But drivers tend to save money when they can, especially when they are in a hurry.' The judge summarized. 'So your main claim is that the lot will fail. Your claim that drivers will not pay unchecked is the reason behind it.' Mr. Whitfield bowed. 'Exactly, Your Honor. The rest is the why.'

Step 5 · Work the real question

Open PrepTest 103, Section 2, Question 8 in your official copy from LSAC (for example in LawHub) and read it there.

Your answer

How to apply it

Find the claim the other sentences serve. Try the 'why?' test: put 'because' after each candidate and see which one the rest of the argument backs up. Watch for a first sentence that bundles a verdict with its reason; split it, and the verdict is the top bun while the reason is a middle bun. Reject choices that restate premises or middle buns, and choices that add ideas the speaker never argued.