LSAT 79, Logical Reasoning I, Q13, LSATHacks

QUESTION TEXT: Weingarten claims that keeping animals in zoos…

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

CONCLUSION: Weingarten is wrong.

REASONING: Weingarten is inconsistent.

ANALYSIS: Being inconsistent doesn’t make you wrong. Weingarten could be right about zoos, even if he holds an inconsistent belief about pets.

Appropos of nothing, I find it very funny that this person’s name means “Wine Garden”. “Wine Garden is wrong on zoos!”

___________

1. The argument doesn’t do this. Weingarten may have no pets. The important thing is that Weingarten has an inconsistent belief about pets.
2. This didn’t happen. The argument is only discussing Weingarten.
   Example of flaw: Weingarten is wrong about zoos. So anyone who argues about zoos is wrong.
3. This is a very different flaw.
   Example of flaw: Weingarten says we shouldn’t have zoos. That’s monstrous. How can he be in favor of killing all the animals in zoos?
4. This is a different flaw.
   Example of flaw: To be evil, you must cause harm. Frank caused minor harm today, without meaning to. So, Frank is pure evil.
5. CORRECT. This is exactly it. Inconsistency makes someone inconsistent – and that’s it. It doesn’t make both of claims wrong. (It merely makes one of claim wrong, but we don’t know which one.)

LawHub Order

LawHub Order

---