Preptest 52, Section 3, Question 18 (LR) Forum

[HiLine]

Even though I got this question right, I decided to bring it up because of what I think is a puzzle.

The stimulus presents two pieces of evidence for his claim that West influenced Stuart. The questions asks for the most supported statement. The correct answer choice suggests that the evidence is strong enough to prove West's influence on Stuart. However, I don't quite see why the 2 pieces of evidence are that strong; they lack the assumptions that would connect them to the conclusion that the influence is present. If the question asked what is the main point of the stimulus I would completely agree that the writer is trying to prove D. However, this is an inference question and I can't see where the pieces of evidence are proved to be strong.

[Atlas LSAT Teacher]

I think this question points out the difference between a strict inference question and one in which you're asked what is most strongly supported. In the latter, there's wiggle room, as in the answer does not have to be 100% provable. In this question, the fact that Stuart's work uses West's terminology is very strong evidence for D, but the connection isn't 100% provable. Plus, the other answers suck.

What do you think?

[HiLine]

I think this question points out the difference between a strict inference question and one in which you're asked what is most strongly supported. In the latter, there's wiggle room, as in the answer does not have to be 100% provable. In this question, the fact that Stuart's work uses West's terminology is very strong evidence for D, but the connection isn't 100% provable. Plus, the other answers suck.

What do you think?

That's a good point. If there really is such a distinction, I'll have to keep it in mind when dealing with other, more recent preptests since most guide books, which I assume do not cover the most recent tests, tend to overlook this nuance.