Q2 - Historian: During the Industrial Revolution, for the fi

by **mshinners** Fri Dec 31, 1999 8:00 pm

Question Type:
ID the Conclusion

Stimulus Breakdown:
Background information about the Industrial Revolution is given. A view from an economist is given before the author pivots ("But") to an opinion on that view and follows it up with a "so".

Answer Anticipation:
That early "thus" definitely brings up a conclusion, but it's a result of the background information. It's less someone's opinion than a historical conclusion.

After jumping into the economist's theory, the author pivots. "But" is where our analysis should start. Normally, the author pivots to an opinion that ends up being the main point. While the author does pivot to an opinion here, he follows up that opinion with a "so". "So" indicates a conclusion, and since it's following up the opinion following the "But", it must be a conclusion using the "But" statement as a premise. Since this ends the argument, it must be the conclusion of the argument. It's also the author's opinion of the economist's view, and when the author weighs in on the opposing point, it tends to be the conclusion.

Correct answer:
(C)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Background fact.

(B) "Historical" conclusion (from background).

(C) Bingo. This is a paraphrase of the last statement, highlighting the historian's view of the opposing point.

(D) This answer is a common trap the LSAT will pull on ID the Conclusion questions. The Historian concludes that more information needs to be brought to light before the economist's conclusion can be accepted. This conclusion is different to one stating the economist is wrong. This answer choice is trying to get you to think the historian goes a step further than stating more information is needed to stating that the opposing view is actually wrong!

(E) Assumption of the opposing viewpoint.

Takeaway/Pattern:
On ID the Conclusion questions, the LSAT will frequently test your ability to distinguish between a conclusion stating an opposing view lacks complete information, and one that states the opposing view is wrong. It's a thin line, so watch out for it!

#officialexplanation