#11 - The fire that destroyed the Municipal Building started

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Main Point. The correct answer choice is (C)

As is the case with any stimulus, we should always look to find the conclusion – what is the author trying to get at? The question in this case asks for the main conclusion, which will often reflect the presence of secondary, or subsidiary, conclusions, which should be eliminated as answer choices.

Answer Choice (A) is wrong, even though it is accurate based on the last sentence. The stimulus says more than this: it implies that because he was there, he must have seen the fire. While this is a correct conclusion, it is not the main conclusion.

Answer Choice (B) seems to be implied from the third sentence, but again is not the main conclusion.

Answer Choice (C): This is the correct answer choice, as it is the main conclusion. We know (1) there was a fire in the Municipal Building on all morning (1st sentence), (2) anybody around the building would have seen the fire (2nd sentence), and (3) Thomas was around the Municipal Building this morning (3rd sentence). Putting that together, we know that he must have seen it.

Answer Choice (D) does not have to be true – he could have made many stops along the way.

Answer Choice (E), like (A), is a correct statement but is just an intermediate conclusion, not the main conclusion. (E) is often chosen because it falls out of the last sentence in the stimulus and we are trained to look for the conclusion at the end. Again, the LSAT makers like to hide the conclusion in the stimulus.

[sakfi]

Hello! I couldn't decide between A and C, then from reading your explanation that I found A is a "subordinate" or "secondary" conclusion.

For questions like this, can you provide some good strategies on how to distinguish between the MAIN conclusion from SECONDARY/SUBORDINATE conclusions? I'm always confused about this kind of questions!

Thank you very much!!

Fei Fei

[Robert Carroll]

Fei Fei,

To identify the main conclusion, ask "What is this argument ultimately trying to prove?" If you have multiple statements that appear to be conclusions, consider which ones makes sense as evidence for the other. In other words, if 1 and 2 are my candidates for the main point, does it makes sense to think that 1 proves 2? What about that 2 proves 1? The intermediate (subsidiary, sub, etc.) conclusion serves as evidence for the main conclusion. If you think something is the main conclusion, but it appears to be presented as evidence for something else, then you haven't yet found the main conclusion.

Robert Carroll

[sakfi]

Thank you Robert! I will think about it more!

[HarryGin]

The reason why I chose A instead of C is that according to the stem we can conclude that Thomas did NOTICE the fire but does that necessarily mean Thomas has seen the fire? Then I chose the intermediate conclusion A
Or did I miss any point in the stem?
Anybody help

[Jeremy Press]

Hi Harry,

From the first sentence of your post, it seems as though you're treating this question more like a "Must Be True" question. But the question stem isn't asking us to identify what we can infer from the stimulus. Or, put slightly differently, it's not asking us which sentence of the stimulus would be the most plausible one to conclude from the given facts.

Our only task on this question is to identify what the speaker's "main conclusion" is, i.e. what the speaker wants us to believe (whether that's a good conclusion or not!). To perform that task, we need to evaluate the structure of the statements, meaning (1) find any premise or conclusion indicators, (2) determine which sentences are being used as premises supporting the conclusion, and (3) determine which sentence is finally being supported by all the others, which will be the main conclusion.

This is a trickier Main Point question, because there aren't any strong premise or conclusion indicator words to rely on. Rather, we have to determine the function of each statement relative to the others. The stimulus statement that Thomas must have seen the fire (answer choice C) is being supported by all the other statements, which makes it the main conclusion and the other statements premises. Whether that statement necessarily follows from the others is a different question (a question about how strong the argument is), which this question stem doesn't require us to determine.

I hope this helps!

Jeremy

[HarryGin]

Hi Harry,

From the first sentence of your post, it seems as though you're treating this question more like a "Must Be True" question. But the question stem isn't asking us to identify what we can infer from the stimulus. Or, put slightly differently, it's not asking us which sentence of the stimulus would be the most plausible one to conclude from the given facts.

Our only task on this question is to identify what the speaker's "main conclusion" is, i.e. what the speaker wants us to believe (whether that's a good conclusion or not!). To perform that task, we need to evaluate the structure of the statements, meaning (1) find any premise or conclusion indicators, (2) determine which sentences are being used as premises supporting the conclusion, and (3) determine which sentence is finally being supported by all the others, which will be the main conclusion.

This is a trickier Main Point questions, because there aren't any strong premise or conclusion indicator words to rely on. Rather, we have to determine the function of each statement relative to the others. The stimulus statement that Thomas must have seen the fire (answer choice C) is being supported by all the other statements, which makes it the main conclusion and the other statements premises. Whether that statement necessarily follows from the others is a different question (a question about how strong the argument is), which this question stem doesn't require us to determine.

I hope this helps!

Jeremy

Oh I think I got it, cheers mate

[kmaragh]

I'm still a little confused. I also chose A because I can infer that from the passage. I understand now that this is simply asking what is the conclusion so I should have been looking out for that but wouldn't this be considered outside language since we are to accept new info since it isn't stated in the passage? I thought against C because I assumed that maybe something distracted him from the fire like texting. but then again, I guess because the fire is so destructive one would assume he did see it? How do we know when to accept information that isn't implicitly stated yet is the correct answer?

[Adam Tyson]

The main conclusion IS stated explicitly in the stimulus, kmaragh, where the author says "Thomas must have seen it." All the rest of the stimulus is designed to support that claim - he admits that he took a certain route, that route took him past the building, and anyone in the area had to notice the fire. Look for the one statement in the stimulus that the author is trying to prove, whether or not you think they DID prove it. Even bad arguments have conclusions, and a Main Point question that asks us to identify that conclusion does not need us to believe the conclusion is valid (although this one certainly seems pretty good, unless Thomas was lying about having gone to the library, or unless the author is mistaken about all routes to the library requiring him to pass the municipal building.)