LSAT 108 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q18

LR Question 18 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Sid: The sign says “Keep off the grass” …

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

ARGUMENTS: MICKI’S ARGUMENT: Just one person walking across the grass doesn’t hurt it.

SID’S ARGUMENT: Micki’s statement is false. If everyone believed that, everyone would walk across the grass and the grass would die.

ANALYSIS: Sid says Micki’s statement is false. But Micki’s statement is correct! If only one person walks across grass, it doesn’t die.

Micki’s statement is only about one person walking across the grass. Sid responds by talking about the consequences of everyone believing that one person walking across the grass doesn’t hurt it.

Those are different things.

It can be true that one person doesn’t hurt the grass while it is also true that if everyone believed this and acted on it, the grass would die from everyone walking across the grass.

The response doesn’t disprove the original statement. It changes the subject.

___________

1. Sid isn’t using consequences to disprove a statement about the action itself. Both Micki and Sid are talking about consequences. The problem is that they’re talking about different consequences.
2. CORRECT. Sid shifts from one action to universal acceptance of a belief about the action.
3. Sid may not believe Micki’s statement, but there’s no contradiction in imagining “If everyone believed X …” for the sake of argument.
4. Whether hurting the grass is justified is never discussed. The issue is whether Micki’s statement is true.
5. Sid never attacks Micki’s character.