Role in ArgumentDiff: Hardest
Logic Breakdown
Passage Summary: Rifka says they only need to ask for directions if they are lost; Craig responds by saying they are, in fact, lost.
Conclusion: We need to stop and ask for directions.
Reasoning: Craig asserts that the condition Rifka established for needing directions—being lost—is currently true.
Analysis: Craig is using Rifka's own logic against her. Rifka sets up a conditional: we only need to ask for directions if we are lost. Craig then provides the 'if' part (the antecedent), which logically forces the 'then' part (the consequent). He's essentially saying the exception Rifka mentioned is the current reality.
Conclusion: We need to stop and ask for directions.
Reasoning: Craig asserts that the condition Rifka established for needing directions—being lost—is currently true.
Analysis: Craig is using Rifka's own logic against her. Rifka sets up a conditional: we only need to ask for directions if we are lost. Craig then provides the 'if' part (the antecedent), which logically forces the 'then' part (the consequent). He's essentially saying the exception Rifka mentioned is the current reality.
Passage Stimulus
Passage Redacted
Unlock Full Passage9.In the exchange above, the function of Craig's comment is to
Correct Answer
B
Craig undermines Rifka’s argument by denying her implicit premise (that they are not lost) and drawing the opposite conclusion on that basis.
Upgrade Your Prep
Ready to go beyond free explanations?
LSAT Perfection is the #1 modern LSAT prep platform, trusted by thousands of students for comprehensive test strategies, advanced drilling, and full analytics on every PrepTest.
Detailed explanations for 59 PrepTests
Advanced drillset builder
Personalized analytics
Built-in Wrong Answer Journal