PrepTest 142, Section 4, Question 2
Historian: During the Industrial Revolution, for the first(73 more words not shown)
The overall conclusion of the(4 more words not shown)
- Aduring the Industrial(14 more words not shown)
- Bthe fact that(25 more words not shown)
- Cno one should(19 more words not shown)
- Dthe improvement in(19 more words not shown)
- Evalues such as(13 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Did people suddenly discover hard work? People could have worked very hard before the Industrial Revolution. Perhaps new technology and factories made their work more productive. Those are reasons to question the economist's story, not facts that settle what caused the change.
The historian takes a more cautious position. Productivity grew faster than the population, and living standards improved. The economist attributes that growth to the spread of hard work and thrift. Before accepting that explanation, the historian wants evidence that those values actually changed before the growth they supposedly caused.
That makes sense: if you're explaining an event by a change in values, first show that the change happened at the relevant time. The historian doesn't declare the economist wrong or establish a different cause.
What we’re looking for
For the main conclusion, follow that response to its recommendation: don't accept the economist's explanation until the historical evidence supports the proposed earlier change. The opening facts tell us what needs explaining; the final recommendation tells us what the historian wants us to believe.
Working the answers
- A
This is an accepted fact about productivity and population. It sets up the event the economist tries to explain. The historian's point comes later, in the response to that explanation.
- B
This connects economic growth with improved living standards. It is part of the background the historian accepts, not the demand for evidence that drives the argument. A true statement from the passage can still have the wrong job.
- CCorrect
This captures the historian's recommendation and its condition: withhold acceptance until historical evidence establishes an earlier change in values. The rule that explanations need factual support is the reason for this conclusion.
- D
Unproven isn't the same as false. The economist might turn out to be right once the evidence arrives. The historian asks for that evidence instead of ruling out a change in values as a cause. Our own suspicion that technology mattered doesn't make this the historian's conclusion.
- E
We haven't established that these values failed to become widespread before the Industrial Revolution. We are waiting for evidence that they did. E turns a request for historical support into a definite negative claim about history.
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.