LSAT 144 | Section 3 | Logical Reasoning: Q2

LR Question 2 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Columnist: An information design expert has argued that…

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

CONCLUSION: It’s silly to say that GIAPS makes people create bad presentations.

REASONING: GIAPS is just a tool, and therefore isn’t responsible for bad presentations. The blame lies with people that use tools poorly.

ANALYSIS: This question is unusual in that the right answer asks you to contradict a premise. The premise is “the tool therefore isn’t responsible for bad presentations”.

Technically, the premise in question is an intermediate conclusion. It starts with “therefore”. All conclusions are fair ground for contradiction, though its rare that the LSAT will require you to contradict intermediate conclusions.

You’ve probably heard that you’re “not allowed” to contradict premises. This isn’t true. It’s just rare that an answer actually contradicts a premise. If you think that an answer contradicts a premise, it’s more likely you’ve misunderstood something.

___________

1. Which claims? There’s no inconsistency. To choose this answer, you’d need to find two contradictory claims, i.e. “The software is expensive” and “the software is cheap”
2. The argument didn’t say this! Search this question all you want, the author did not say anything about good presentations.
3. The argument didn’t mention popularity. An answer can’t be the flaw if it didn’t happen.
4. CORRECT. This is a good objection. Maybe the software is really, really bad.
   “So it cannot be responsible….” is an intermediate conclusion and it’s not supported by good evidence. That’s why it’s contradictable.
5. This answer describes an ad hominem flaw. An example is “We shouldn’t wear clothes because Hitler wore clothes!”. You have to evaluate what an argument says, not who said it. But this argument doesn’t attack anyone’s character.