PrepTest 116, Section 3, Question 16
Everything that is commonplace and ordinary fails to(19 more words not shown)
The conclusion of the argument(10 more words not shown)
- AOnly miracles of(7 more words not shown)
- BSome things that(8 more words not shown)
- CSome things that(9 more words not shown)
- DEverything that fails(8 more words not shown)
- EOnly extraordinary or(5 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A pen on a desk might be so ordinary that you don't notice it. Fine. But where did miracles of nature come from?
The premise tells us what happens to commonplace, ordinary things: they fail to catch our attention. The conclusion suddenly says some of the things we overlook are miracles of nature. We need a connection between those miracles and the ordinary things in the premise.
Think about a sunrise. Suppose we count it as a miracle of nature but also treat it as an ordinary part of the day. Then the rule would explain how a miracle could go unnoticed. We haven't actually been given that example as a fact; it shows the kind of connection we're missing.
What we’re looking for
We're asked to make the conclusion follow. My prediction is that some miracles of nature are commonplace and ordinary. Those particular miracles would then fail to catch our attention under the given rule. We only need some overlap, not a claim that every miracle is ordinary.
Working the answers
- A
This concerns things that fail to be ordinary and commonplace. We need miracles that are ordinary and commonplace, because those are the things the premise tells us we overlook. A could put every miracle outside that group without giving us a single overlooked miracle. Mentioning miracles isn't enough; the relationship has to fit.
- BCorrect
Some ordinary, commonplace things are miracles of nature. That gives us actual things with both descriptions. Since every ordinary, commonplace thing fails to catch our attention, those particular miracles fail to catch our attention too.
The wording starts with ordinary things instead of miracles, but the overlap works either way. If some ordinary things are miracles, then some miracles are ordinary. Either phrasing supplies the same shared examples.
- C
This gives us some ordinary things that go unnoticed. It still says nothing about miracles of nature. Those unnoticed things could all be things that aren't miracles, leaving the conclusion unproved. The missing connection isn't between ordinary things and attention; it's between ordinary things and miracles.
- D
This goes from failing to catch our attention to being ordinary, while the original premise goes from being ordinary to failing to catch our attention. Even if we add this second direction, we still have no fact connecting miracles to either group. D cannot establish an overlooked miracle.
- E
This limits what catches our attention to extraordinary or unusual things. It doesn't establish that any miracle of nature is ordinary, or otherwise establish that a miracle goes unnoticed. We could have this rule while every miracle attracted attention. B supplies the missing overlap; E doesn't.
More Sufficient Assumption questions
- PrepTest 116, Section 2, Question 18Sufficient Assumption
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 10, Question 1Sufficient Assumption
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 12, Question 4Sufficient Assumption
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 13, Question 1Sufficient Assumption
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 3, Question 7Sufficient Assumption
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Sufficient Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.