Q18 - Tallulah: The columnist attributes

[demetri.blaisdell]

This is a problem we usually go over in class. For those of you who were wondering, Tallulah is a Choctaw Native American name that means "leaping water."

This is an identify the conclusion question. Be careful to choose what she says and not what we think she might think.

The first sentence is background information. The second sentence has the conclusion and the premise is in the very long third sentence.

In the simplest terms, the argument is:

Columnist didn't talk about how bad fiction is and how good magazines are ---> Columnist overlooked key evidence

(C) tells us exactly that. It seems that Tallulah might have other opinions/disagreements with the columnist, but the only one she actually says is that the columnist didn't consider all the evidence.

(A) is tempting. But it's really a premise that is used to support Tallulah's ultimate point: that the columnist didn't consider all the facts.

(B) is also somewhat tempting. But stick to the words in the stimulus! Tallulah hasn't said she disagrees with the columnist's conclusion---only that the columnist didn't look at all the facts.

(D) is not in the passage at all. Tallulah says that other good writing is available not that people necessarily read it more. This is implied by a premise but it is not the conclusion.

(E) is almost word-for-word the second part of Tallulah's premise. Nothing for us here.

The key takeaway on this problem is that identify the conclusion questions ask us to choose the a re-wording of the conclusion as written. You should not be inferring, guessing, extrapolating, or otherwise monkeying with the stimulus.

If you've read this and still have a question, post away!

Demetri

[timsportschuetz]

I would like to add to the above explanation of answer choice B. In numerous PT's that use this language ("surely, ... failed to consider blablabla"), it can be reasonable and correctly inferred that this person disagrees with the reached conclusion! However, if you look closely at B, you should clearly notice that there is an important scope shift between question stem and answer choice! Question stem talks about the "decline in interest". Answer choice B simply states that novels are being "displaced". This does not match at all! It is very common on the LSAT to have very attractive wrong answer choices for identify-the-conclusion questions that slightly alter the meaning/language of the original argument! The columnist NEVER concludes that novels are being displaced! The columnist concludes that the INTEREST IN NOVELS is declining.... If you chose this answer, you must ask yourself: Does "novels being displaced" logically mean the same as "decline of interest in novels"? No, it certainly doesn't! Being displaced and the decline of interest are two wholly different subjects!