LSAT 128 | Section 3 | Logical Reasoning: Q24

LR Question 24 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Historian: The revolutionary party has been accused …

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

CONCLUSION: The revolutionary party was not overambitious and caused no suffering.

REASONING: Most of the party’s goals were achieved fast. And the party didn’t have enough power to cause the suffering that critics claim it did.

ANALYSIS: There’s a shift in meaning here. Suffering is measured in two different degrees.

The conclusion says that the party caused no suffering at all. But that’s not what the reasoning says.

The reasoning only says that the party didn’t have enough power to cause the suffering the critics claim it caused. That’s not enough to conclude that they caused no suffering at all. They could’ve still caused a little suffering, even if it’s not to the extent that critics say.

___________

1. There are indeed responses to two criticisms: overambition and suffering. But they’re not mutually inconsistent (they don’t contradict one another).
2. CORRECT. The historian only argues that the party lacked the power to cause the level of suffering critics claim. That doesn’t prove the party caused no suffering at all.
3. The historian isn’t trying to prove that critics underestimated or overestimated the party’s power – only that the party wasn’t powerful enough to cause suffering.
4. They did provide evidence by saying that their goals were achieved quickly. You might think this is weak reasoning, which is fair, but it still counts as evidence.
5. A failure to consider other points isn’t necessarily a flaw unless you claim that you’re addressing all points or that the argument is a complete defense. The historian doesn’t claim that.