LSAT Question Explanation
PT 108, Section 3, Question 8
Main ConclusionArgument structure
The claim that all uses of language are metaphorical is false.
A metaphor shows a similarity between a word's literal meaning and something to which the word is nonliterally applied. There need to be some uses of words that are literal, or else there could be no nonliteral uses.
Explanation
This question leads off with a nice long, confusing description of what a metaphor is, but then just introduces a claim made by some people and rejects the claim. The rejection of the claim is the conclusion and the last sentence is the direct evidence. This is a common argumentative structure on the LSAT.
The extremist's view cannot be correct because if all language were metaphorical, then no language would be literal. And the author's definition of a metaphor relies on words having a literal meaning.
Answer choices
In other words, the extremist's claim "cannot be so." This answer choice restates the main conclusion of the argument.
This is just not even part of the argument.
This is evidence the author uses to support their conclusion. Nothing else in the argument supports this statement.
This is the description of what a metaphor is from the beginning of the stimulus. It's just a premise that sets up the argument.
This is nowhere in the argument.