LSAT 6 | Section 3 | Logical Reasoning: Q8

LR Question 8 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: The senator has long held to the general principle that…

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

CONCLUSION: No true work of art is obscene.

REASONING: If something is obscene then it isn’t a true work of art.

ANALYSIS: This is an excellent example of circular reasoning. The Senator’s only premise is just the contrapositive of his conclusion. Art is obscene because obscene things are not art.

___________

1. The senator is attempting to approach obscenity by a rational definition. The problem is that his evidence is the same as his conclusion.
2. There isn’t a contradiction between his conclusion and his premise. There cannot be a contradiction because they are the same thing.
3. The senator appeals to a principle rather than to the prestige of his office.
4. CORRECT. Yes. If you show the senator something obscene he will claim it isn’t a work of art. That way he can conclude that no piece of art is obscene. It’s a completely circular argument.
5. Obscenity is a relevant consideration when we are trying to decide if art can be obscene.

Recap: The question begins with “The senator has long held to the general principle that”. It is a Flawed Reasoning question. Learn more about LSAT Flaw questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.