QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning
CONCLUSION: Our team will almost certainly win the city championship.
REASONING: Our team is the most likely to win the championship. It’s the best team, because we recruited the best players.
ANALYSIS: You might think the flaw is the first sentence. Do the best players necessarily work well enough together to make the best team?
Yes, they do. The sentence says ‘Because we recruited….’. This implies that the team actually is the best, and the best players are the reason. You must assume that premises are true in LSAT arguments.
The flaw instead lies in the difference between ‘most likely’ and ‘almost certainly’. Maybe the best team only has a 7 percent chance of winning. This is higher than any other team’s chance, and therefore ‘most likely’. Not very impressive, right? Certainly not ‘almost certain’ victory.
- Rubbish. Read carefully. Why did the argument say the team is the best? Because they have the have the best players. This answer can’t be the flaw if it didn’t happen.
- What features? The argument said that the best team has the best chance of winning. And ‘our club’ is the best team, so that seems entirely relevant.
- Why would this be a flaw? If you want to predict the outcome of a competition, it’s a good idea to compare the two parties! In any case, like answer choice A, the argument didn’t do this. There’s no comparison.
- Again, the argument didn’t do this. Here’s an example of this answer: “Because the team is the best, each player must be the best”. It’s a whole to part flaw, which simply isn’t in the argument.
- CORRECT. ‘Most likely’ could mean an 8% chance, which is not very likely at all. The argument went from ‘most likely’ to ‘almost certainly’. Almost certainly refers to overall likelihood, +80% or so.
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly