Here, we are being asked to identify Maria's conclusion. Maria's conclusion is the first sentence, i.e. "Calling any state totalitarian is misleading."
Her support? It implies total state control of all aspects of life and the real world contains no political entity exercising literally total control over even one such aspect [PREMISE]. She continues on to state that this is because any system of control is inefficient [PREMISE] and therefore its degree of control is partial [SUBSIDIARY CONCLUSION].
(A) states exactly this, i.e. "No state can be called totalitarian without inviting a mistaken belief." What is the mistaken belief? Total state control of all aspects of life which is not possible.
(C) is a subsidiary conclusion that is supporting Maria's main conclusion so (C) cannot be the correct answer. Maria's argument is not that the degree of control exercised by a state is necessarily partial. It is that calling any state totalitarian is misleading because the degree of control exercised by a state is necessarily partial.
Remember, whenever you encounter two conclusions, to identify the subsidiary conclusion, ask yourself which one supports which. The one that supports is subsidiary. The other one is the main conclusion.
Notice here "the degree of control exercised by a state is necessarily partial" supports "calling any state totalitarian is misleading."
Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
irinacioncaSeptember 1, 2017
I don't understand why B is not correct. It seems that B describes precisely Maria's beliefs: "Calling any state totalitarian is misleading: it implies total state control of all aspects of life." - i.e. "totally control society" as described in "B". I see how, in a way, "A" fits better because she does imply it is "misleading" and so on....but that, in no way undermines the validity of answer choice "B".
MehranSeptember 3, 2017
Hi there. As noted above, we are being asked to identify Maria's conclusion, "Calling any state totalitarian is misleading."
Answer choice (B) can be eliminated because there is nothing in it that addresses the "is misleading" part of Maria's conclusion.
Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any additional questions.
Brett-LindsayJune 25, 2020
The magic colon.
Another aspect to notice is the colon (:), which acts like the word "because." Frequently, the words after a colon explain the first part of the sentence.
If a statement comes after the word "because" (or a colon), I don't think it can be the conclusion: it must be supporting the conclusion.
The LSAT seems to use the colon frequently, so it'd be a good idea to notice it.
