LSAT 151 | Section 4 | Logical Reasoning: Q23

LR Question 23 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: If a piece of legislation is the result of negotiation…

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

CONCLUSION: Satisfies no one ➞ negotiation

REASONING: Negotiation ➞ Satisfies no one

ANALYSIS: This is a straightforward mistaken reversal. It gives us a single conditional statement, then reverses it in the conclusion.

A necessary condition never proves the sufficient condition. For example, if I said “Every argument leaves a couple unsatisfied”, that is “argument ➞ unsatisfied”. This author is saying we could therefore prove “If a couple is unsatisfied, they must have argued”.

The answer is extremely convoluted, but if you know 100% what the flaw is, it’s possible to see that only the right answer could even possibly describe it.

___________

1. This answer describes circular reasoning. A circular reasoning answer is almost never correct , as it is hard to make a circular argument that doesn’t sound comically bad.
    
   Example of flaw: Compromise leaves people unsatisfied. The reasoning is as follows: compromise is not satisfying.

2. CORRECT. This is worded strangely, but it describes the flaw. I chose this with a two step process:

   1. Determine that the right answer must be conditional
   2. Determine that only this answer describes mixing up conditionals. That’s enough to suspect an 80-90% chance of this answer being right.

   If you have extra time you can also figure out the meaning of the answer to be 100% sure, but with the two steps above it’s safe enough to choose an answer on that basis. Nonetheless, here’s how to map this answer to the stimulus:

   The claim that the condition leads to that result: Negotiation (condition) ➞ satisfies no one (result)

   Condition is necessary for a certain result: Satisfies no one (result) ➞ Negotiation (condition necessary for that result)

   A little convoluted, but hopefully you can see what the terms in the answer refer to. If a condition is “necessary for a certain result”, then that means if we have the result, we also have the other thing. i.e. If I say “a tail is necessary for the result of being a cat”, I’m really just saying “cats necessarily have tails”.

3. This is the flaw of changing word definitions. It is usually wrong, as linguistic mistakes tend to be obvious.
    
   Examples of flaw: “This is a rare steak, so it must not be common.” “It’s in the public interest to release the documents. The public is very interested in them!”
4. The author actually never said this. It’s possible that legislation could satisfy everyone, if no compromise were necessary to make it. 
5. When evaluating an answer, you have to think “what would an example of this look like”. This one would be really dumb! It describes using an irrelevant principle. So it would rarely be the right answer.
    
   Example of flaw: The fastest giraffes have the longest legs. So, the fastest snakes must also have the longest legs.
    
   (Note: A few snake species do have legs, but they’re tiny and irrelevant)