LSAT 79, Logical Reasoning I, Q26, LSATHacks

QUESTION TEXT: Some eloquent speakers impress their audiences with…

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Parallel Reasoning

CONCLUSION: No obscene speakers impress their audience.

REASONING: 

1. Eloquent SOME impress with vividness.
2. Obscene –> not eloquent

ANALYSIS: This is a bad argument. Eloquence and vividness are one way to impress, but the argument didn’t show that they’re the only way. For example, maybe you can shock an audience with enough obscenity that that will impress them.

The structure is:

1. a SOME b
2. c –> a
3. c –> b

Here is an analogous argument:

• Some people in Britain are rich
• People in the USA are not in Britain
• So, no one in the USA is rich

Hopefully the structure is clear. We have a “some” statement describing one way to get rich. Then, we have an “all” statement showing that a certain group isn’t part of that “some” statement. Then the error is assuming there was no other way to meet the goal.

This is a long question question. To go faster, you can skim the answers looking for a “some” and an “all”. If you don’t find those, the answer is almost certainly not correct. I skimmed right to E before testing any answer, and I tested E first. (I skipped C because the “some” was in the conclusion, whereas the original had a “none” conclusion.)

___________

1. There are no “some” statements in this answer. And, this is a good argument!
   Structure:
   M –> MC
   This culture lacks M, so it lacks MC.
2. This is a good argument!
   Structure:
   Serious –> one page per day
   Contrapositive: one page per day –> Serious
   Some authors write one page per day.
3. This is a flawed argument. Its flaw is misunderstanding the word “some”. The author assumes that if some centers of industry are not small, then some must be small.
   That isn’t so. “Some” can be anywhere from 1 to all, so it could be that all centers of industry are not small. But, this isn’t the flaw that was made in the stimulus.
   Structure:
   * center commerce –> center of industry
   * center of industry SOME small city
   * Conclusion: center of commerce SOME small city
4. This is a flawed argument: it incorrectly negates the “most” statement. However, this doesn’t match the stimulus. The original argument introduced a second factor, whereas this only has “farmer/not farmer”. (The lack of “some” also suggests this answer is wrong.)
5. CORRECT. This matches. The author for some reason assumes that the only way to make significant art is to be a sculptor.
   Structure:
   * Sculptor SOME significant art
   * Musician –> sculptor
   * Conclusion: musician –> significant art

LawHub Order

LawHub Order

---