LR Question 8 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Sociologist: The claim that there is a large number of…
QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning
CONCLUSION: There aren’t many crimes in society.
REASONING: Newspapers only print stories about crime because there aren’t many crimes.
ANALYSIS: This is a circular argument. The premise is the same as the conclusion.
___________
- The sociologist only said that there are a large number of crime stories. They didn’t say most. And if they had said most, I’m not sure why that would be wrong, if it were true.
- CORRECT. The sociologist gives us no evidence. They just say “there aren’t many crimes”, twice.
- The sociologist didn’t say anything about bias. And I’m not sure what bias has to do with whether there are many or few crimes. Even if you write a biased story about a crime, presumably the crime did happen.
- This is a different error, a part-to-whole flaw. It’s like saying: every cell in your body is tiny, so you’re tiny.
- This is a different error. It’s like saying: it’s been warm every day in August, so it will be warm for the rest of the year.
Recap: The question begins with “Sociologist: The claim that there is a large number of”. It is a Flawed Reasoning question. Learn more about LSAT Flaw questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.
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.
Im confused on why B is correct, the wording of the answer choice B is confusing to me
Conclusion: There aren’t many violent crimes.
Reasoning: Violent crimes are rare, so that’s why you see a lot of news stories about them.
He’s taking for granted that violent crimes are rare. That’s exactly the point (conclusion) he is supposed to be proving. For an argument to be valid, you need to provide separate evidence to prove your reasoning. But instead of giving real evidence that violent crimes are rare, the author just builds his reasoning on that idea. In essence: You can’t use “violent crimes are rare” to justify “There aren’t many violent crimes” – you’re not actually giving any supporting evidence there, you’re just using the same premise as your conclusion and reasoning.
That’s what B is referring to when it says “presupposing the truth of the conclusion it’s attempting to establish”. Translated to simpler terms, B is saying: “the argument is assuming its conclusion is already true while trying to prove it.” That’s a logical flaw called circular reasoning.
Hope that helps! Let me know if you have further questions.