LR Question 15 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: A popular book argues that people who are successful…
QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning
CONCLUSION: It’s ridiculous to say that successful people have had a lot of luck.
REASONING: Successful people have worked hard!
ANALYSIS: This author ignores an obvious possibility. It’s possible that success requires both hard work and a lot of luck.
Of course, to answer this question you must translate this into abstract language. Basically, the author thinks hard work is sufficient, but actually it may only be necessary.
(If hard work were sufficient, you wouldn’t need luck. If hard work were necessary, then other factors such as luck might also be necessary.)
___________
- CORRECT. See the analysis above. “Hard work” is the thing which is necessary but is mistaken for sufficient.
- This is a different flaw.
Example of flaw: This person says they are a professor of mathematics. So, when they say 2 + 2 = 5, I know I can trust them. No need to check their diploma. - This describes circular reasoning. It’s usually pretty obvious: the evidence will be the same as the conclusion.
Example of flaw: Luck isn’t necessary for success, because success doesn’t need luck. - This is a different flaw. See question 2 on this section for an example of this flaw used on an LSAT question.
Example of flaw: I see successful people often retire early. So, retiring early is the key to success! - This is an ad hominem. It’s generally a flaw.
Example of flaw: The popular book written by a communist said that luck causes success. I hate communists! So, the book must be wrong.
More Resources for Flaw Questions
- Flaw drills: Use these to practice making examples of abstract flaws.
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Flaw questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers flaw questions.
Hello, thank you for the amazing explanations that have helped me through out my studies.
With that said, however, I don’t see how your reasoning explains the problem though. You are saying that he is mistaking “Hard work” as being sufficient when the stimulus clearly says, “…success requires hard work.” My understanding is that that he clearly sees “hard work” as being necessary.
What I do think he confuses as being sufficient, and thus choice A accurately describes, is the book’s claim that these people always have luck on their side. His mistake is in seeing this statement as sufficient, but if he sees it as necessary then it resolves the initial pre-phrase I had of this problem; that being him treating “luck” and “hard work” as being mutually exclusive. If hard work is sufficient then there is no need for luck, unless it is necessary and therefore there is a possibility of both these factors being necessary and fitting into a chain together somehow.
It could very well be the case that I am just not understanding something in your explanation, after-all you are the expert, if that is the case please help me understand better.
Thank you and keep up the good work.
You’re correct, thank you! I had that backwards. Will update the explanation.
Note: This is an old comment but I wanted to address the correction.