PrepTest 132, Section 2, Question 15
Speaker: Like many contemporary critics, Smith argues that(74 more words not shown)
The speaker's main conclusion logically(9 more words not shown)
- AInsight into the(16 more words not shown)
- BSmith lacks insight(5 more words not shown)
- CThere is just(9 more words not shown)
- DSmith's theory about(12 more words not shown)
- EThe intended meaning(13 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why wouldn't Smith understand her own circumstances? She's the person who has lived them.
Smith says understanding an author's social circumstances is required to understand the true meaning of that author's words. Think of the author's background: wealth, poverty, or place in society. Applying that idea to Smith isn't a problem by itself. She could say, “Yes, consider my background too.”
Also, a requirement isn't a guarantee. Smith says we need insight into circumstances to understand meaning. That doesn't promise that knowing the circumstances will tell us everything we need to know about the words. So the speaker has already pushed beyond what Smith's rule establishes.
What we’re looking for
But the main conclusion is narrower and more personal: Smith doesn't know the true meaning of her own words. To make that follow under her rule, show that she lacks the required insight. If she doesn't understand her own social circumstances, she fails a condition she herself says is needed for understanding her words. That's the missing assumption to look for.
Working the answers
- A
How important one kind of insight is compared with another doesn't establish whether Smith has either kind. We need a fact that prevents her from meeting the requirement for understanding her words, not a ranking of what matters most.
- BCorrect
Smith lacks the insight her own rule requires. If understanding her words requires insight into her social circumstances, and she lacks that insight, then she cannot understand their true meaning. This gives the speaker a route to the main conclusion without treating knowledge of circumstances as a guarantee of understanding.
- C
Having one intended meaning rather than several doesn't tell us whether Smith has insight into her own circumstances. She could intend one meaning and understand it, or intend several and understand those. The number doesn't establish the missing failure to meet her requirement.
- D
Calling Smith's theory uninsightful doesn't establish that Smith lacks insight into her own circumstances. Those are different claims. The speaker is testing what follows if Smith's account is right; dismissing the theory doesn't complete that reasoning.
- E
Intended meaning and true meaning might differ without Smith being unaware of the latter. This general warning about using intention as evidence doesn't establish what Smith herself knows. The argument needs the missing fact about her insight into her circumstances, which B supplies.
More Sufficient Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Sufficient Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.