LR Question 21 Explanation
QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning
CONCLUSION: There must be at least one person who is both a weakling and a fool.
REASONING: Many weaklings are cowards and all but a few (most) cowards are fools.
ANALYSIS: “Many” statements are basically just some statements. You can’t combine those with anything except a sufficient-necessary condition. It’s possible that people who are both cowards and weaklings are never fools.
A parallel argument would be: Many iguanas are pets and most pets have fur (dogs and cats.) Therefore at least some iguanas have fur.
___________
- This is a good argument though it could actually have said all weasels. Weasel ➞ carnivores ➞ non-herbivores
- This is a bad argument but only because it assumes that you have to be a saint or a moralist to live like saints or moralists.
- CORRECT. This incorrectly tries to combine “some” statements. Painters and dancers might have no overlap, even if both groups overlap with musicians.
- Virtuous ➞ Free ➞ Autonomous. This is a good argument.
- This is a good argument though they could have correctly concluded that “most voters are not opposed to stricter tariffs.”
Need help with LR? → Sign up here
Try the LSAT Hacks CourseGraeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly
Hi, I'm Graeme Blake
I run LSAT Hacks, and I scored a 177 on the LSAT. I teach strategies that let you get questions right, and quickly. I’ve been teaching for over nine years, and have seen everything from score plateaus to test anxiety. I’ve got courses and mastery seminars for people at all levels, and have worked with some of the best LSAT companies around.
---------
Photos and Stuff: Here's my Instagram – Instagram
Fly me somewhere warm or beautiful and I'll give you free tutoring while I'm there 🏝:)
Leave a Reply