LR Question 17 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Anarchist: People can either fight for anarchy or they can…
QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning
CONCLUSION: People should fight for anarchy, because it allows each individual the freedom to pursue a personal course of happiness.
REASONING: People can either fight for anarchy or tolerate totalitarian government control. Historically, government control of all facets of human life destroys the spirit and makes life miserable.
ANALYSIS: This is a weird argument, and the flaw should stand out to you. The argument has presupposed that there are only two options: total anarchy or totalitarian government control. But that’s certainly not the case. People can fight government control to an extent, while not slipping into complete anarchy. The failure of the argument to address possibilities in the middle is its fatal flaw.
___________
- This answer misses the point. It suggests that the author has failed to show that anarchy is superior, but fails to address the huge flaw in the dichotomy.
- The argument never says that people should tolerate totalitarian government control. It just presents it as an alternative to anarchy.
- This is the opposite of what the argument does. The author claims that totalitarianism is objectionable, and so claims that people should fight for anarchy.
- The argument did indicate evidence for this claim, by noting that history shows it to be true.
- CORRECT. The argument is based on a false dichotomy. It is possible for a society to be neither anarchist or totalitarian.
Recap: The question begins with “Anarchist: People can either fight for anarchy or they can”. It is a Flawed Reasoning question. Learn how to master LSAT Flaw questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.
More Resources for Flaw Questions
- Flaw drills: Use these to practice making examples of abstract flaws.
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Flaw questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers flaw questions.
This isn’t correct analysis. If you take the premises as true (which you are suppose to do on the LSAT) then there are only two options, anarchy and totalitarian government. They didn’t commit a flaw by false dichotomy because the premises only give two options for this question. LSAC has already admitted this question was experimental and written poorly so to provide an explanation of that answer in this way isn’t correct analysis.
The question is unscored. It was once a real question on a scored lsat. Every “experimental” section on an official PT is a former real section, the questions are no different than scored sections.
The issue is they defined anarchy differently. They once called it chaos, and another time absence of government. You can’t switch definitions and assume that anarchists want chaos unless you show that anarchists themselves believe anarchy = chaos.