LR Question 13 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: If the purpose of laws is to contribute to people’s…
QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning
CONCLUSION: Current laws are legitimate merely because they are laws.
REASONING:
- Purpose is happiness ➞ basis for criticizing laws
purpose is happiness➞basis for criticizing laws
ANALYSIS: The reasoning makes an incorrect negation. Another way of describing this error is mistaking sufficient as being necessary.
___________
- CORRECT. “Purpose is happiness” was a sufficient condition for having a basis for criticism. The argument mistakes it for also being a necessary condition. That’s called an incorrect negation: thinking that negating the sufficient also negates the necessary. (It doesn’t)
- This is a different flaw: correlation is not causation.
Example of flaw: Happy citizens are associated with good laws. So, happy citizens cause good laws. - This is a different flaw: using a word in two different ways.
Example of flaw: That man likes rare steaks. So, he must have to search a long time to find such rare items. - This is a different flaw. It involves mixing up fact and morality.
Example of flaw: Everyone should be equal. Therefore everyone is equal. - This is a whole to part flaw.
Example of flaw: The Swiss are a rich people. So, this Swiss hobo is rich.
Recap: The question begins with “If the purpose of laws is to”. It is a Flawed Reasoning question. To practice more Flawed Reasoning questions, have a look at the LSAT Questions by Type page.
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.
Hi Graeme, thanks for all your awesome content!
I was a bit confused about this question, but I understand it now. I fell for AC D after bubbling A and (stupidly) talking myself out of it. I clearly see my mistakes after reviewing, so there’s no need to harp on that, but I would like to know, can you direct me to any LSAT questions where the flaw IS “draws a conclusion about how the world actually is on the basis of claims about how it should be?” I think seeing a real LSAT example of this would be helpful, if there are any! To not fall for that trap again. I have a LawHub account so locating such a question should not be an issue.
Thanks in advance!
Hi! Glad to hear you’re enjoying the site. I tried having a look and wasn’t able to find any, unfortunately. If you want to dig a little yourself, you might want to use the terms “descriptive vs prescriptive” or “is-ought problem” to find any such questions. Let me know if you find one!