PrepTest 102, Section 2, Question 7
Generations of European-history students have been taught that(81 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(9 more words not shown)
- AThe assassination did(32 more words not shown)
- BThe war was(17 more words not shown)
- CThough the statement(28 more words not shown)
- DIf the assassination(33 more words not shown)
- EAlthough the conditions(34 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A spark can start a fire, but it doesn't explain why everything was ready to burn. That's the author's distinction. The assassination set off the war, so calling it a cause isn't simply false. But the treaties, alliances, and assembled military forces are what made that event capable of setting off a much larger conflict. The author thinks those underlying conditions deserve the deeper explanation.
Imagine focusing only on the final spark while ignoring the dry material waiting around it. You would identify the immediate trigger but leave out why that trigger produced such a large fire. In the same way, teaching only that the assassination caused the war leaves students with an incomplete account.
What we’re looking for
The main-point answer should preserve both sides: the assassination was a cause in a limited sense, while the underlying conditions were the more fundamental causes. Don't turn a distinction between kinds of causes into a claim that the assassination had no causal role at all.
Working the answers
- A
The passage explicitly allows that the assassination was a cause, though a trivial one. A denies that. It also says the earlier events had equal claims to being causes, while the author gives the treaties, alliances, and military buildup a deeper causal role. Both changes move away from the point.
- B
The author calls the conflict inevitable under the prevailing conditions. That doesn't mean the entire course of earlier history was unalterable. The conditions themselves might have developed differently. B changes a claim about what those conditions made inevitable into a much broader claim about historical destiny.
- CCorrect
The assassination can truthfully be called a cause, but “cause” applies more fundamentally to the conditions that allowed it to start the war. That captures the distinction between the immediate spark and the setting ready to burn. The main point qualifies the familiar teaching rather than simply denying it.
- D
This asks what might have happened with less military force. The passage identifies accumulated military force as part of the deeper explanation, so the hypothetical is related to the discussion. But it isn't the author's main point, and the passage doesn't work out how a smaller amount of force would affect the timing or occurrence of the war. It leaves out the overall distinction among causes.
- E
This claims that another trigger would have changed the course the war took. The author discusses why the war began, not how a different trigger would have altered its subsequent events. A claim about different participants, battles, or outcomes would need more information. E adds that separate historical comparison.
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.