The Critical "Must Be True"

Test 53 - Section 1 - Question 5

Logical Reasoning

Difficulty: 1


Explanation


Make sure you master this one before you move on. It's a great teaching example of the critical Must Be True (or "Supported") question type. 


These questions are top-down and evidence-based. We need to pick an answer that is *proven* by the given facts. The wrong answers will be different, more than, "extra." The correct answer will be fully justified by the facts on the page. 


A) This is out because of "cannot be." We were given one example of technology's impact at one point in time–it has fixed one problem (short-ass, painful-ass lives) but it created another problem (financial devastation for some social welfare programs). But just because that happened today doesn't mean that technology, in the future, won't solve everything. 


B) Definitely not. This is out because of "technological innovations should be delayed." The facts simply do not say this! Would you really live that short-ass, painful-ass life? Didn't think so. 


C) I hated this one right away because of "every." I hated it even more at "unavoidable." Look: we know that an awesome technological innovation led, one time, to some unwanted problems. That's not justification for "every time you make anything better you always fuck something else up." Get out of here. 


D) I hated this one immediately because of "all." The facts do not support a conclusion about "all" of anything. But anyway, where the hell does "preoccupation with prolonging life" come from? It comes from out of left field, that's where. It's a terrible answer for this type of question. 


E) Finally, damn. There's one word in this answer that I love. What is it? 


One word that makes E very easy to prove. 


Come on, you got this. 


What's the word in E that makes this an excellent answer for a Must Be True?


...


...


...


You sure? I'll wait.


...


...


...


The word that I love in this answer is "can." It is super-easy to prove "can." It's super-easy to prove "can" or "could" or "some"–all these terms mean "one or more." Do we have ONE example of how solving one set of problems can create another? Yes, yes we do. Solving short-ass, painful-ass lives (definitely a problem) created another problem with our social welfare programs. 


E is the answer, 100%, because it is fully proven by the facts on the page. 


Don't sleep on this one. Make sure you understand it completely before you move on. 


Get more of these explanations from the LSAT Demon

336 views
  • Facebook Social Icon
  • Instagram
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn Social Icon
  • YouTube
  • iTunes Social Icon

©2019 by Thinking LSAT