Prompt: The statement that there is no evidence that Bosch was a member of the Brethren figures in the argument in which one of the following ways?
Difficulty: 🌕🌕🌑🌑
How will the right answer fit in terms of support and conclusion?
Only the right answer will accurately describe what kind of conclusion, support, or background the statement in the prompt is.
Highlight the main conclusion in the passage, if there is one:
Fraenger’s assertion…is unlikely to be correct.
[CONCLUSION]. [BACKGROUND]. However, [SUPPORT], and [SUPPORT].
Why is the assertion unlikely? Because there’s “no evidence”. That’s definitely support for the author’s disagreement with Fraenger.
Map the wording of the answers to the wording of the passage:
(A) …guarantees the falsity of Fraenger’s assertion.
Whoa too strong. The conclusion only says something is “unlikely”, so a word like “guarantees” has no business being in the right answer.
(B) …used to support the claim that Bosch was a member of a mainstream church.
We like the “support” part, but that’s not the right claim. The “claim” generally means the conclusion, which was only that Fraenger is probably wrong.
(C) …by questioning Fraenger’s credibility.
It’s only Fraenger’s argument that the author disagrees with, at least in the passage. If the author thinks Fraenger is a charlatan or a blowhard, that didn’t make it into their argument.
(D) …intended to cast doubt…by questioning the sufficiency of Fraenger’s evidence.
You love “cast doubt”, since that maps perfectly to a counter-argument like the one the author is making. And this answer echoes the support about “Fraenger’s evidence.”
(E) …show that Bosch’s choice of subject matter remains unexplained.
Nobody picked this, right? The author didn’t say anything that sounds like “unexplained.”
(D) is the correct answer.
Elliot Hirsen / LSAT coach 
Leave a comment