jjlaw wrote:Did anyone else have a hard time with LR1, Q7 - the role of the statement question? I had the hardest time wrapping my mind around that one. It's definitely one of the more complex Role of the Statement questions I've seen.
i agree. i narrowed it down to D and E and as usual ended up picking the wrong one.
explanation of this answer is provided by Noah from Atlas LSAT prep (http://www.atlaslsat.com/forums/pt-59-s ... -t596.html
The conclusion of this argument, as is often the case, can be found in the middle. A typical structure is:
What some folks say.
But, I disagree.
And with this structure, the "I disagree" is the conclusion. In this argument, there's an additional sentence in the beginning -- the one we care about -- that is a phenomenon that some folks try to explain (with a theory that the columnist argues against).
So, the conclusion is that "there must be some other reason..." The next sentence is a premise supporting that conclusion (it's an example of when not seeing the performer did not matter). To back up to the sentence we're interested in, the first sentence is a given fact ("it's been noted"), followed by an explanation for that fact. The conclusion is that that explanation is insufficient.
An analogous argument would be: "It's been noted that chocolate ice cream is more popular than vanilla. Some say it's because it's darker. However, there must be another reason, since strawberry ice cream is less dark yet more popular than chocolate."
The question asks us what role the first sentence plays. In the analogy above, it's the fact that the second sentence attempts to explain -- and it is that explanation that the conclusion attempts to debunk. There are many trap answers that we can predict; one trap is to think that the conclusion attempts to explain or refute the given fact/phenomenon. In the LSAT's argument, the first sentence plays the same role -- as (E) notes -- the columnist disagrees with an explanation that attempts to explain the phenomenon described in that sentence. That's a mouthful!
(A) is a version of the trap mentioned above. The columnist is not trying to explain the phenomenon, he or she is arguing that a specific explanation is insufficient.
(B) is incorrect because the columnist is not attempting to undermine a claim; it's an explanation that is being discussed.
(C) is tempting, however the columnist does not provide an explanation -- only an argument against an explanation.
(D) is a similar to (A). It should be clear now that the columnist is not refuting the phenomenon described in the first sentence, but he or she is arguing against an explanation for that phenomenon.