#4 - The case of the French Revolution is typically regarded

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Method of Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (C)

In typical LSAT fashion, the author’s first point is the exact opposite of the point she is really trying to make. Herein, the author begins by stating that the French Revolution is regarded as best evidence for the claim that societies reap more benefit than harm from a revolution. However, in the very next sentence, the author disputes this claim and it is this refutation that serves as the actual conclusion of the Stimulus. Students should always be aware of this 180° turn and fall into the trap that may invariably follow.

What does the author do here? First she states a common view of the French Revolution, then she disputes that claim. As evidence for her position that the common view is wrong, she cites the fact the French civil servants remained in office during the revolution carrying out the day-to-day work of government which prevented many of the normal disruptions than accompany revolutions. Because normal day-to-day functions of government were not disrupted, the author concludes that the French Revolution is not a good example of how societies reap more benefit than harm from a revolution. Please note that the author is not stating that societies reap more harm than benefit from a revolution (that would be the polar opposite of the common view).

The Question Stem reveals a typical Method of Reasoning question. Because we examined closely the author’s argument and asked what she was trying to accomplish, we are easily able to pre-form an answer that states the author stated the common view of the French Revolution, disputed that view and offered support for her position.

Answer Choice (A): This answer should be eliminated. If there are internal inconsistencies in the common view, the author did not point them out.

Answer Choice (B): This answer is attractive, but ultimately fails because it does not follow what the author did here. She did not use general principles to support her position; she used a specific example to demonstrate why her conclusion is correct and the common view is not.

Answer Choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. The author opposed the common view and she provided evidence of why the French Revolution was not a typical revolution.

Answer Choice (D): This answer should be eliminated because the author does not use a series of persuasive examples. In fact, she uses one example of why the common view is incorrect.

Answer Choice (E): This answer choice is attractive on its face because it mentions that there are two positions. But the author does not compare two positions at all; she states what they are (the common view and her view that the common view is incorrect) and offers some evidence to support her position.

Again, by eliminating four Answer Choices, we are able to determine the correct answer, which coincidentally follows our pre-formed answer.

[sjp2124]

Hi,

I was debating between A and C. What would an internally inconsistent claim have looked like? I thought that since the event was called a revolution, but the author was implying it really wasn't, that that was the internal contradiction/inconsistency.

Thanks,
S

[Clay Cooper]

Hi sjp,

Thanks for your question, and welcome to the forum! I hope you find it a valuable resource.

An internal inconsistency is a self-contradiction; it occurs when a line of reasoning depends on mutually incompatible assertions. For instance, if I said:

Bob is an idiot. I can tell, because he is certainly smart enough to create a spreadsheet, and yet he continuously fills his reports with math errors.

That argument concludes that Bob is an idiot - but does so based on evidence that he is smart. This is an example of an internal inconsistency - Bob can't be both smart and an idiot.

I hope that helps!

[swong1267]

C mentioned undermining evidence, and I didn't really see that in the stimulus. It seemed more like the author mentioned new/more evidence that calls the original point into question.

[nicholaspavic]

Hi swong,

Thanks for the great question. When I think of "undermining," I tend to think of something that erodes away at the foundation of an argument. This may be a dated reference, but I think of Mike Myers' Linda Richman character on SNL when she would get "verklempt" and then throw out a topic for discussion while she gathered herself with something like: "The New Deal was neither 'new' nor a 'deal,' discuss." In other words it's evidence that tends to disprove something that we would typically take for granted as part of the basis for what we accept as true. That's undermining and that's Coffee Talk, no big whoop. Now excuse me while I go on a canasta cruise.

Thanks for the great question and I hope this helps!

[nmgee]

Is there any further elaboration on "inconsistency" that could be offered? I chose (A) because I considered the argument to suggest that the common view of the French Revolution is inconsistent with the features of typically disruptive revolutions, because of France's "unique advantages" mentioned. Isn't the argument saying that these inconsistencies make it a poor exemplification of beneficial revolutions? Is there perhaps a more appropriate word for this situation, in which the example mentioned proves not to be so great of an example?

As for (C), what exact "evidence offered" is the argument undermining? I read it as indeed opposing a claim, but only offering its own evidence, not as undermining any "offered evidence in support of the common view". Could someone please explain? Thanks in advance for your help on these two questions.

[Adam Tyson]

When we see an argument being called "inconsistent" on the LSAT, it means that the claims in it contradict each other. Two statements are inconsistent if they cannot both be simultaneously true. Conversely, a "consistent" set of claims is a group of claims that COULD be simultaneously true, even if they are completely unrelated. "The sun rises in the east" and "my dog is playful" are consistent claims because they can both be true at the same time. "The sun rises in the east" and "the sun does not rise in the east" are inconsistent claims.

So answer A is saying that the author did something to show that the people who claim that the French Revolution is a good example of a revolution doing more good than harm somehow contradicted themselves, offering evidence that actually showed more harm than good. That's not what our author did, and so cannot be the correct answer.

The claim that is being undermined is the claim that revolutions can be more beneficial than harmful. The evidence offered in support of that claim is the case of the French Revolution ("the best evidence for the claim"). Our author undermines that evidence by showing that the French Revolution was not a good example of a revolution because it was a unique case rather than being representative of revolutions in general. Answer C describes just that!

[whardy21]

I struggled with choosing C and selected A. Can you please explain what evidence evidence supports the claim that societies can reap more benefits than harm. I do not see evidence to support that claim.

[Adam Tyson]

The evidence being undermined is the evidence of the French Revolution, whardy21. Some people hold that example up as the best evidence that a revolution can do more good than harm. The author undermines that by showing that the French Revolution was a special, atypical case.

[AlyssaY]

the author concludes that the French Revolution is not a good example of how societies reap more benefit than harm from a revolution. Please note that the author is not stating that societies reap more harm than benefit from a revolution (that would be the polar opposite of the common view).

The claim that is being undermined is the claim that revolutions can be more beneficial than harmful. The evidence offered in support of that claim is the case of the French Revolution ("the best evidence for the claim"). Our author undermines that evidence by showing that the French Revolution was not a good example of a revolution because it was a unique case rather than being representative of revolutions in general. Answer C describes just that!

My understanding was that the author opposed the claim that the French Revolution is the best evidence and he/she showed this by pointing out that it was a unique case. I did not think that the author opposed the claim that societies can reap more benefit than harm from a revolution, just that the French Revolution is not the best evidence to support this claim ("serves this role poorly").

Since I thought this was the claim that the author opposed, I eliminated C and picked answer D instead, "justifying a view through the use of a series of persuasive examples". I thought that the author used the examples of the civil servants and functionaries to justify the view that the French Revolution was unique and thus poor evidence for the claim about the effects of revolutions on societies. I realize now that this wouldn't be considered a "series" of examples so I understand why it's incorrect.

Is the author's use of the phrase, "But even the French Revolution serves this role poorly..." an indication that he/she actually opposes the claim that societies can reap more benefit than harm from a revolution? In showing that the BEST evidence for that claim is actually fairly weak since it's a unique case, we can assume that the author opposes that claim overall?

Thank you!!