LSAT 30, Logical Reasoning I, Q2, LSATHacks

LR Question 2 Explanation, by LSATHacks

QUESTION TEXT: Raymond Burr played the role of lawyer Perry Mason on…

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

CONCLUSION: Television has caused even some legal professionals to lose their ability to distinguish fiction from reality.

REASONING: The lawyer said that when Raymond Burr died it was as if a lawyer had died, even though Mr. Burr only played a lawyer on TV.

ANALYSIS: It’s pretty clear that the lawyer wasn’t hallucinating. He was just praising the skill with which Mr. Burr played his role as a lawyer on television. 

The lawyer doesn’t think that Burr actually was a lawyer. He even says “Although not a lawyer.”

___________

1. The argument didn’t generalize. It just said “even some lawyers.” Some can mean just one.
2. It would have been perfectly appropriate to criticize the lawyer if he had said something stupid.
3. The main point of the criticism was that the person making the argument thought the lawyer had gone insane and imagined that a TV lawyer was real. You don’t need to be able to evaluate an actor’s skill in order to be insane.
4. The argument focuses on the prominent lawyer, not the actor who played a lawyer.
5. CORRECT. The argument willfully ignores the part of the lawyer’s statement that says “Although not a lawyer.” 

Hi, I'm Graeme Blake

Founder of LSAThacks; I scored a 177 on the LSAT.

I created the LSAT Mastery Seminars, which are part of the Ultimate LSAT Prep Bundle

If you like the explanations you're reading I'm 100% confident you'll enjoy the courses. Satisfaction guaranteed.

---------
Updates:

For updates, sign up for my email list. I update whenever I have new posts.