PrepTest 127, Section 2, Question 9
Rifka: We do not need to stop and(30 more words not shown)
In the exchange above, the(6 more words not shown)
- Acontradict the conclusion(14 more words not shown)
- Bdeny one of(10 more words not shown)
- Cimply that Rifka's(14 more words not shown)
- Dprovide a counterexample(3 more words not shown)
- Eaffirm the truth(13 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
This sounds like a familiar road-trip disagreement: one person insists there is no need to ask for directions, while the other wants to stop. To understand the reasoning, separate the general condition from the claim about their situation.
Rifka says they would not need to stop unless they were lost. She concludes they don't need to stop, apparently relying on an unstated thought: we aren't lost. She doesn't say that last part explicitly, but it is what connects her general statement to her conclusion about this trip.
Craig challenges that thought directly. They are lost, he says, and that is precisely why they need to stop. He reaches the opposite conclusion by rejecting something Rifka was taking for granted.
What we’re looking for
For the question about his comment's function, I would look for a denial of an unstated premise. An implicit premise is just a supporting claim left unstated. Here it is the assumption about whether they are lost, not the general rule about when directions are needed.
Working the answers
- A
Craig does contradict Rifka's conclusion, but he also challenges her implicit premise. His assertion that they are lost directly opposes her apparent assumption that they aren't. The second half of A therefore misdescribes his response.
- BCorrect
The implicit premise is that they are not lost. Craig denies it by saying they are lost, and he reaches a different conclusion: they need to stop. Both parts of this answer match what his comment does.
- C
This is tempting if we focus only on Rifka's stated premise. Craig doesn't challenge the idea that being lost matters to whether they need directions. But the answer says he accepts the argument's premises, which includes the unstated claim that they aren't lost.
Those are two different pieces of support: the general condition and the claim about their current situation. Craig disputes the second. He is not accepting all the support while merely objecting that the conclusion fails to follow.
- D
A counterexample would present a case that conflicts with the general rule, such as a situation where people need directions despite not being lost. Craig doesn't offer such a case. He says they are lost and uses that fact to argue that they should stop.
- E
Craig is very clear about the conclusion: they need to stop. Whatever agreement there may be about the stated premise, he does not remain noncommittal about whether stopping is necessary.
More Strategy of Argument questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strategy of Argument questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.