Logical Reasoning · Main Conclusion

PrepTest 124 · Section 2 · Question 18

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

A speaker answers someone else's view by saying that view skipped over evidence; the point is the skipping, not the evidence itself.

The basic logic

Spot the other person's view first (that is background). Then find the speaker's own claim about that view. The facts listed afterward are the patty: they back up the claim that something was missed. The top bun is the verdict on the other person's reasoning.

Tiny words that decide it

“however”
“overlooked”
“indeed”

Playground logic

Marcus's view is the bottom bun. Sharon's top bun is that Marcus decided too fast and missed clues. The flat ball and the shiny new court are her patty, the helpers that prove she is right.

Step 2 · The kid story

Sharon and the Empty Soccer Field

At recess, nobody played soccer anymore. Marcus put on his detective hat. "Case closed. Kids today are lazy. They would rather sit on the bench and trade stickers." Sharon crossed her arms. "Marcus, you made up your mind without looking at all the clues." "What clues?" "The soccer ball has been flat for two weeks. You can kick it, and it just goes thup. And the new four-square court opened last Monday, with bright paint and a real rubber ball." Frankie, who usually argues with Sharon, nodded for once. Lulu wrote on her clipboard: Sharon's big point: Marcus missed evidence. Her proof: flat ball, new court. Kevin added that a dinosaur would also prefer four-square. Nobody asked him.

Step 3 · Try the model question

Sharon: Marcus says kids quit playing soccer at recess because they are lazy and like stickers more. But Marcus reached that view without looking at important clues. The soccer ball has been flat for two weeks, and a brand new four-square court just opened.

Which choice best states the main point Sharon is making?

Step 4 · The courtroom tale

The Case of the Quiet Bakery

A food critic had written that the town bakery lost customers because people no longer cared about good bread. The baker sued for unfair criticism. Mr. Whitfield tugged his suspenders. "Your Honor, my point is simple. The critic made up his mind without looking at the evidence." Judge Okafor raised an eyebrow. "Such as?" "The road in front of the bakery has been closed for repairs all spring. And a new bakery opened next to the train station." The judge wrote a note. "So you are not proving people love bread. You are proving the critic skipped facts." "Exactly, Your Honor. The road and the new shop are my helpers. The skipped facts are my point."

Step 5 · Work the real question

Open PrepTest 124, Section 2, Question 18 in your official copy from LSAC (for example in LawHub) and read it there.

Your answer

How to apply it

Find the view the speaker is answering and mark it as background. Then find the sentence where the speaker gives a verdict on that view. Ask whether the facts that follow are there to support that verdict. If yes, the verdict is the top bun. The right answer restates the speaker's claim about the other view's reasoning, not one of the supporting facts and not a stronger claim the speaker never made.