#13- It is a given that to be an intriguing person, one must

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Main Point—SN.. The correct answer choice is (B)

In this stimulus we are presented with several conditional statements:

In order to be an intriguing person, you must be able to inspire constant curiosity.

intriguing able to inspire perpetual curiosity

If you are constantly broadening your abilities and extending your intellectual reach, you will be able
to inspire that curiosity.

broadening ability and intellect able to inspire perpetual curiosity

The final sentence begins with the word “For,” which in this case is means “Because.” So, here the
author is actually presenting a premise: Constantly increasing your ability and intellect makes you
impossible to totally understand, and thus a constant mystery to others:

broadening ability and intellect constant mystery

Putting together the argument in retrospect: If you are constantly expanding, you are a constant
mystery, and thus you are able to inspire perpetual curiosity:

broadening ability and intellect constant mystery able to inspire curiosity

The question which follows is a Main Point question, and we can prephrase an answer based on
the discussion above: The author believes that a person who constantly increases his or her abilities
and intellect is impossible to understand, is therefore a constant mystery, and is thus able to inspire
perpetual curiosity.

We should note that even if one is able to inspire perpetual curiosity, we cannot assume that person
will be intriguing—this would reflect a mistaken negation of the first sentence (what we know is that
anyone who is intriguing can inspire such curiosity).

Answer choice (A): This choice, which restates the first sentence in the stimulus, can be diagrammed
as follows:

intriguing able to inspire perpetual curiosity

This does not express the conclusion of the argument, but rather the first premise presented, so this
answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice, and the one which restates the conclusion as
prephrased above:

broadening ability and intellect able to inspire curiosity

The author’s conclusion is that if one is constantly expanding in ability and intellect, then one can
remain mysterious, and this enables one to inspire perpetual curiosity in others.

Answer choice (C): This choice is a commonly chosen wrong answer, in part because it has
information presented in the last sentence of the stimulus, but like incorrect answer choice (A)
above, this is actually a supporting premise of the argument:

broadening ability and intellect constant mystery

This premise lacks the important component of the ability to inspire perpetual curiosity, so it cannot
represent the main conclusion of the argument.

Answer choice (D): This is another tricky wrong answer, mistaking a sufficient condition for a
necessary one, provides the following Mistaken Reversal:

able to inspire curiosity broaden ability and intellect

From the stimulus we know the reverse to be true: that if one can constantly broaden one’s abilities,
then one will be able to inspire perpetual curiosity.

Answer choice (E): This incorrect answer choice does not reflect the author’s conclusion, nor is it
even necessarily accurate according to the passage:

broadening ability and intellect always have curiosity

The author tells us that a person who constantly broadens his or her abilities and intellect is able to
inspire curiosity in others—not necessarily in his or her self.

[lorein21]

I got A. I just don't know how to set it up to get B nor do I see how to get B. Do I even have enough time to lay it all out the way they did in the answer section?

Help?

Thanks,
Lorein

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Lorein,

This is a very difficult question, and slightly more people choose (A) than choose (B).

You are right that the question is full of conditional reasoning. To be able to diagram a stimulus like this one, you have to be fast, which comes from practice. Regardless, it is still pretty tricky. However, because this is a Main Point question, in this case the diagram is less important than simply identifying the conclusion in the argument. If you can identify the conclusion, then you can most likely find the correct answer. So, let's talk a bit about the conclusion in this stimulus.

There are three sentences in the stimulus, premises first:

Sentence 1. This is a premise. The phrase "it is a given that" implies that the author is taking this statement as true, which in argumentation normally means that another statement will follow from that statement, meaning that we have a premise. Answer choice (A) reflects the idea in this sentence, but because this sentence is a premise, (A) is incorrect.

Sentence 3. This is another premise. The word "for," when it appears at the beginning of a sentence is most often a premise. Remember that premises answer the question "why?," as in "Why is that the case? For the following reasons..."

Sentence 2. This is the conclusion. Answer choice (B) reflects this idea nearly exactly.


From a diagramming standpoint, this is how the above roughly appears:

Sentence 1: Intriguing --> Able insp. curiosity

Sentence 3: Broaden abilities --> not Comprehended --> Intriguing

Sentence 2: Broaden abilities --> Able insp. curiosity
(this conclusion links sentences 3 and 1, in that order)


Please let me know if that helps. Thanks!

[lorein21]

yes,I have to pay more attention to those premise indicators because that would have simplified it early on. Thank you!

[agroves]

Hi,

Can you please explain why answer choice B, as opposed to answer choice A, is the correct answer to question #13 on the Sep. 2009 LR Section 1 LSAT? I would greatly appreciate a walk-through of the process of how to identify the conclusion in this type of question.

Thank you!

Angela

[Adam Tyson]

That's a very hard question, confusing even very skilled LSAT students (and instructors!), and there's a good explanation from our fearless leader Dave at this link:

http://forum.powerscore.com/lsat/viewto ... uing#p2025

Check that out and let us know if it helped!

[zazu]

Hi,

Can you please ascertain whether my following diagramming is correct:

Sentence 1: intriguing person inspire perpetual curiosity
Sentence 2: broadening abilities + extending intellectual reach (=perpetual expansion of mind) inspire perpetual curiosity
Sentence 3: perpetual expansion of mind impossible to be fully comprehended constant mystery to others (=intriguing person)

When they are all connected, answer choice (B) can be produced as follows:
broadening abilities + extending intellectual reach impossible to be fully comprehended intriguing person inspire perpetual curiosity

Also, how safe is it to assume that "constant mystery to others" is equivalent to "to be an intriguing person"? It could very well be that a mysterious person is not necessarily intriguing. How can we safely make such inferences in the future?

[Jonathan Evans]

Hi Zazu,

Good questions. Thanks for providing your analysis.

There are several points to address here, some more pragmatic, some more formal. First, for the pragmatic. Your task here is to identify the main point. In other words, your primary concern is to note where the author is going with her argument. What is the claim here? Where is the reasoning going?

Start with the some indicator words. Which statements offer evidence? Which statement(s) is/are based on that evidence. If you can establish where the argument is headed, then you'll identify the main point/conclusion and be done.

1. "It is a given that..." very likely a premise, presented as axiomatic
2. No indicator here.
3. "For such a perpetual expansion..." The "for" here is a fancy shorthand for "this is because," again a premise

Put it all together, and strictly by the transition language/indicator words, we can conclude that the second statement is the conclusion.

This analysis is sufficient to get the right answer.

Now with respect to the conditional reasoning in the argument, let me start by suggesting a simplification: create a kind of symbolic shorthand for these arguments to clarify the reasoning.

1. IP IC
2. BA IC
3. BA FC IP

You are correct to wonder whether "to be a constant mystery to others" is equivalent to "be an intriguing person." For most intents and purposes, these phrases strike me as more or less synonymous. Further, let's return to the point that we're concerned here solely with establishing the intended main point of the argument. Even if there is some slight ambiguity or disconnect between these phrases, any such minor ambiguity does not take away from the overriding structure of this argument. This is why I choose to keep the shorthand IP consistent between statements (2) and (3).

So your analysis is sound. You did a great job! Just a couple pointers here to streamline your approach and also to focus on the question task. Even if this argument had serious flaws, we could still surmise that the second statement is the intended conclusion.

I hope this helps!

[adlindsey]

I first chose B but then went with D. The reason is I didn't know whether "Constantly broadening one's abilities and extending one's intellectual reach will enable...," was sufficient or necessary. Is it safe to assume that "will enable" is a sufficient indicator?

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi adlindsey,

Thanks for the question! Here, there's no real indicator, so you're going to need to rely on an analysis of the relationship between the two parts of the phrase. In this case, broadening abilities is sufficient, inspire curiosity is necessary.