PrepTest 111, Section 1, Question 20
Columnist: Almost anyone can be an expert, for(31 more words not shown)
The columnist's conclusion follows logically(8 more words not shown)
- AAlmost anyone can(11 more words not shown)
- BSome experts convince(8 more words not shown)
- CConvincing certain people(16 more words not shown)
- DEvery expert has(11 more words not shown)
- ESome people manage(12 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Convincing people you're an expert might be harder than the columnist makes it sound.
I initially want to distinguish appearing qualified from actually knowing the subject. But the passage gives us its own rule: anyone who convinces some people of their qualifications in an area counts as an expert. For this argument, we can accept that rule and still ask who can meet it. A person might confidently claim expertise and fail to persuade anyone.
What we’re looking for
That's the gap between the rule and “almost anyone can be an expert.” The conclusion needs almost anyone to be capable of convincing at least some people in at least one area. The question asks for an assumption that makes the conclusion follow, so that is what I'd look for: the ability to meet the stated requirement spread across almost everyone, not just a few successful persuaders.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
This supplies the missing ability. Almost anyone can convince some people of their qualifications in some area. The stated rule then counts anyone who does that as an expert. Put those claims together and almost anyone can become an expert.
The modest scope of the persuasion matters. A person doesn't need to convince everybody or establish expertise in every field. Some people and some area are enough under the columnist's rule, and A says almost anyone can achieve that.
- B
A few experts might be astonishingly persuasive across almost every field. That still tells us nothing about whether almost everyone else can persuade anybody at all. B expands the success of some existing experts instead of establishing the widespread ability the conclusion needs.
- C
This adds a requirement for successful persuasion: actually being qualified. It doesn't establish that almost anyone can become qualified or can convince others of it. Even if C were true, most people might still fail to meet the columnist's test. The gap in the broad conclusion remains.
- D
This concerns people who are already experts. Even if every one of them convinced others, it wouldn't show that almost anyone can join their ranks. A very small set of people could have succeeded while everyone else lacks the ability.
Also, the original rule tells us that convincing others makes someone an expert; it doesn't by itself say that every expert became one that way. But even granting D as the question allows, we still haven't established the needed claim about almost everyone.
- E
Some people convincing almost everyone is different from almost everyone being able to convince some people. For example, imagine that only five people out of a hundred can persuade others, while the remaining ninety-five cannot. The five might persuade nearly everybody, making E true, without almost anyone being able to qualify as an expert.
The answer needs to broaden the group who can persuade, not merely the audience that a small group can persuade. A does that; E doesn't.
More Sufficient Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Sufficient Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.