LR Drill Set 1, Question 10
Novelist: Rather than have characters trade unusually well-crafted(65 more words not shown)
The claim that it is(23 more words not shown)
- AIt is a(15 more words not shown)
- BIt is one(13 more words not shown)
- CIt is the(7 more words not shown)
- DIt is a(18 more words not shown)
- EIt is an(20 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The novelist is defending the books against a particular criticism. What, exactly, is the defense?
The critics think natural-sounding dialogue is easy to write, so they dismiss the novels' artistic achievement. The novelist responds in two ways. First, natural dialogue isn't easy to write. Second, even if it were easy, that wouldn't reduce its artistic merit. Something needn't be difficult for its artistic value to deserve recognition. Those are separate lines of defense. The first challenges the critics' belief about difficulty. The second says the criticism would still fail even if that belief were true. Both lead back to the same point: the critics are mistaken to dismiss these novels' artistic achievement on that basis.
What we’re looking for
The role question singles out that point. Follow where the reasons lead rather than looking for a special position in the paragraph. The novelist offers the two replies to support the claim that the critics are mistaken. We aren't then given a further claim that this mistake is supposed to establish. This is the conclusion.
Working the answers
- A
A tangential comment would be an aside, not part of the argument's main reasoning. This claim is the point of the defense. The discussion of difficulty and artistic merit is there to persuade us that the critics are wrong.
- B
The two replies about difficulty are the supporting claims. The selected statement is what those replies support. It doesn't become a premise just because two reasons are offered elsewhere in the passage. Ask which way the support runs: the replies support “the critics are mistaken,” not the other way around.
- CCorrect
The novelist is trying to establish that the critics are mistaken in dismissing the novels' artistic achievement. Both the denial that natural dialogue is easy and the claim that ease wouldn't diminish artistic merit serve that conclusion. It is the destination of the reasoning.
- D
This also calls the selected statement a premise. But the novelist doesn't combine “the critics are mistaken” with another fact to prove a separate conclusion. The rest of the argument explains why we should accept that selected statement.
- E
An intermediate conclusion has two jobs: other claims support it, and it then supports a further conclusion. This statement has the first job but not the second. Nothing else is offered as the final point beyond the critics' mistake, so it is the main conclusion rather than an intermediate one.
More Role/Main Point questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Role/Main Point questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.