PrepTest 149, Section 4, Question 3
Restaurant owner: The newspaper reporter who panned my(48 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(11 more words not shown)
- AThe newspaper reporter(14 more words not shown)
- BThe previous job(13 more words not shown)
- CThe newspaper reporter(8 more words not shown)
- DThe newspaper reporter(10 more words not shown)
- EA newspaper would(13 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
You don't need special training to notice rotten food. If a restaurant served it, a former political reporter could reasonably complain about it. So when the owner brings up the reporter's lack of expertise, I'm ready to object: that doesn't make the bad review false. 'Panned' means criticized harshly.
But the owner doesn't actually conclude that the review is false. The complaint turns to the reporter's qualifications and status as a critic. The owner even concedes that he writes well, then compares restaurant criticism with theater criticism.
What we’re looking for
We're asked for the conclusion. My initial description of the point would be that this reporter lacks the relevant expertise. Let's be precise, though: which claim about him is the owner trying to establish, and which facts are offered as reasons? A statement can be central to the argument without being its conclusion.
Working the answers
- A
This is tempting because it concerns the lack of expertise I focused on. But the reporter's acknowledgment supplies evidence for the owner's judgment about his status. Ask what it supports: having no special food expertise is a reason the owner gives for denying that he is a true restaurant critic. A is the supporting fact, not that ultimate judgment.
- B
His previous political-reporting job is background offered to reinforce the concern about his qualifications. The owner isn't trying to prove that he had that job; the job is mentioned as part of the case against treating him as a restaurant critic.
- C
The owner grants that he is a good writer. That concession helps separate writing ability from the special qualifications the owner thinks a critic needs. Praising his writing is not the point the other statements are meant to establish.
- DCorrect
The reporter is not a true restaurant critic. That is the judgment supported by his admitted lack of food expertise and by the comparison with trained theater critics. This sharpens the initial prediction: the absence of expertise is the reason, while the conclusion concerns whether he qualifies as this kind of critic. The direction of support decides the issue, not simply which sentence sounds most forceful.
- E
The theater example supports a similar expectation about restaurant criticism: if a drama critic needs special training, perhaps a restaurant critic needs relevant expertise too. Whether that comparison is persuasive is separate from its role. It is another reason for the judgment about this reporter, not the main claim about theater criticism.
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.