Top Law Schools

"Music Critic" with underground rock group music.

This is a justify with a principle question.

What I like to do with these is find the conclusion, which in this one is "How well an underground rock group's recordings sell is no mark of that group's success as an underground group."

I then go to the answer choices and see which principle can justify that conclusion obviously.

I see the correct answer is B, but that does not make sense to me. I have no information what happens if one is incompetent or if the music is too trendy?

How can that justify especially since those two ideas were attached with may be's.

The simplest way to handle this is that the right answer is likely to link premise and conclusion. The premises say that sales may indicate trendiness or incompetence. The principle says that trendiness and incompetence are not marks of success. The conclusion follows: sales don't mark success.

But I think you've gotten deeper into it than that, so the following may lead you back out (though, frankly, the above is how I would think about it).

If sales are a mark of success, then good sales or bad sales tell you something about whether the band is successful. The argument says that good sales might indicate trendiness, which the principle says is not successful. I imagine it's not too much of a leap for the LSAT to say that good sales might also indicate generally being good, which might be successful. So good sales indicate nothing; you might be good or you might be trendy, so you might be successful or not.

What about bad sales? Well, bad sales mean you're not excessively trendy, which might be good, but they might also mean that you're incompetent, which is bad according to the principle. So bad sales still aren't a mark of success.

So you can't judge success from sales, according to the premises and the principle. Good or bad sales could mean success or lack thereof. This is what the conclusion is trying to argue.