LSAT 137 | Section 3 | Logical Reasoning: Q8

LR Question 8 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Clark: Our local community theater often produces play…

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

CONCLUSION: Michaela must be a critically acclaimed playwright.

REASONING: Our local theatre often produces plays by critically acclaimed playwrights, and considers acclaim important in selecting plays.

ANALYSIS: This is a bad argument. “Often” could mean as little as 30%. The author takes this possibility to be a certainty.

___________

1. This is a different error.
    
   Example of flaw: Critically acclaimed playwrights know how to read. This playwright knows how to read, so they must be critically acclaimed.
2. This is a different error.
    
   Example of flaw: Water makes things wet. So clearly it is impossible for water to reduce thirst, as different effects always have different causes.
    
   (Note: “getting wet” and “reduced thirst” are the multiple effects that the author believes can’t both be caused by water.)
3. CORRECT. This matches exactly. “Critically acclaimed” is one factor. But not the only one. For example, the theatre might favor selecting plays by local citizens (such as Michaela, Clark’s neighbor). Locals might not necessarily be acclaimed.
4. This is a different flaw.
    
   Example of flaw: The town drunk told me, while drinking, that his play is critically acclaimed. So, the town drunk must be a critically acclaimed playwright.
5. This….isn’t what the argument said. An answer can’t be the flaw if it wasn’t what was said.
    
   Example of answer: We took a terrible playwright, and produced their play in our theatre. As a result of our showing their plays, the playwright’s plays have become good.