- [+] Spoiler
- What confused me here about (D) are the words “fails to exclude.” I tried to parse them out, but was not successful. "Exclude" means to "deny access." To “Fail” to “exclude" would mean the argument “doesn't deny access to the possibility…” I thought (D) was a trap answer in which if we read it quickly, we read into it what we want-like answer choice (C) of number 14 of this very same section (if “can” actually read “can’t” it would be correct.)
Furthermore, I chose (B) because it is literally true, but apparently is not technically speaking a flaw. On further review (D) can be read as the argument is flawed because it “never denied the possibility…” In “Never denying the possibility…” the argument actually never dealt with possible reasons why people would say Shakespeare didn’t write his plays (I.E. objections to the view that it is motivated “purely by snobbery.”)
This is part of what makes the LSAT so difficult. It appears to me to be an ultra-convoluted way to point out a flaw in someone’s reasoning to state that they “fail to exclude” the possibility of something, because when I read “fails to exclude” I think ok: they included. It just seems like a clunky and convoluted way to point something out that must be read in a specific way. But hey, that's the game
Experienced test-takers: if you don’t mind, could you shed some light on your thought process and how you would differentiate between (B) and (D) for me?
-Thank you!
