LSAT 146 | Section 3 | Logical Reasoning: Q12

LR Question 12 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Advertisement: When you need a will, consulting a…

QUESTION TYPE: Necessary Assumption

CONCLUSION: If you need a will, then you should always pay for a lawyer’s advice on wills.

REASONING: Lawyers are more expensive, and software will produce a valid will. However, lawyers produce a will tailored to your circumstances.

ANALYSIS: The whole doctor analogy is actually irrelevant. Analogies generally can’t be used to prove anything. In my summary I stuck to what we know for sure about the legal situation.

The only factor mentioned in favor of lawyers is that they tailor wills. The argument implies that software doesn’t do this. But it doesn’t say this is the case. So, there’s the necessary assumption: the argument is assuming software can’t tailor wills.

This is a classic flaw: implying you’ve made a comparison when you have not in fact made one.

Btw, watch out before going to law school with a large amount of debt. Software is set to reduce and automate many legal jobs. Only go to law school if you can get through without a large debt load. (or any, ideally). Debt is a massive risk right now.

___________

1. As I said above, the analogy is irrelevant. You should focus on the facts of the situation.
    
   It wasn’t the lawyers’ expertise that was cited as a difference: it was the fact that lawyers tailor wills.
2. CORRECT. Negate this, and there’s no difference between lawyers and software.
   Negation: Software is just as good as lawyers at tailoring wills to particular circumstances.
3. This is actually irrelevant. Customer satisfaction isn’t exactly the right criterion with wills: the customers dies before finding out if the will good!
    
   So, this answer deals with customers’ beliefs. But the stimulus is about facts: was the will good?
4. This is a useless answer, because it doesn’t say if the inadequate wills were prepared by lawyers or software.
5. As I wrote above, the analogy actually isn’t necessary to the argument. So it doesn’t matter if the analogy is possible or not.