Maria:  Calling any state totalitarian is misleading: it implies total state control of all aspects of life. The real...

SamA February 20, 2020

Hello!

No need to feel discouraged. The LSAT is designed to be frustrating, so it is totally normal if it takes a while to get the hang of it.

If you are struggling to make and understand diagrams, I would return to the sufficient and necessary lesson and go through it again. This is one of the most important concepts on the test, both for Logical Reasoning and Logic Games. Learn how to identify sufficient and necessary conditions, and how to create a contrapositive.

I also recommend that you return to the argument structure lesson. Make sure that you are able to identify conclusions and premises. That will help you a lot on a question like the one you have linked here.

It is worth it to spend a lot of time on those two lessons. They will help you on just about every question type. Go a little bit slower your second time through the videos/drills, and feel free to post specific questions on the message board. We will be happy to explain whatever you want to know.

As for this particular question, we want to identify Maria's conclusion. Remember that a conclusion will always require support. It will leave you asking questions. The given premises will answer that question. I use this question/answer strategy to help me track an argument.

Conclusion: Calling any state totalitarian is misleading.
Why?
Premise: Because it implies total state control of all aspects of life.
and
Premise: No state can control even one aspect.

There is another conclusion here, which is the claim about inefficiency. However, this is not the main point of the argument, so it is not the main conclusion. It is a subsidiary conclusion.

Answer choice A most accurately expresses the main conclusion. If I call a state totalitarian, it means that I believe the state to have total control. This belief is mistaken, because no state has total control.