LSAT 101 – Section 3 – Question 15

LSAT 101 - Section 3 - Question 15

December 1997

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Target time: 1:13

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question QuickView	Type	Tags	Answer Choices	Curve	Question Difficulty	Psg/Game/S Difficulty	Explanation
PT101 S3 Q15	+LR	Inference +Inf Conditional Reasoning +CondR Quantifier +Quant	A 6% 159 B 2% 158 C 3% 159 D 5% 159 E 85% 169	146 153 161	+Harder	146.901 +SubsectionMedium

J.Y.’s explanation

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Dr. Z:

Many of the characterizations of my work offered by Dr. Q are imprecise, and such characterizations do not provide an adequate basis for sound criticism of my work.

Summary

Regarding Z’s work, many (i.e., some) characterizations by Q are imprecise characterizations.

Imprecise characterizations don’t provide an adequate basis for sound criticism of Z’s work.

Very Strongly Supported Conclusions

Some characterizations by Q don’t provide an adequate basis for sound criticism of Z’s work.

Some of Dr. Q’s characterizations of Dr. Z’s work provide an adequate basis for sound criticism of Dr. Z’s work.

Unsupported. We’re given no information on what provides an adequate basis for sound criticism. We can infer that at least some of Q’s characterizations fail to provide an adequate basis, but that doesn’t imply that any of his characterizations do provide an adequate basis.

All of Dr. Q’s characterizations of Dr. Z’s work that are not imprecise provide an adequate basis for sound criticism of Dr. Z’s work.

Unsupported. We’re given no information on what provides an adequate basis for sound criticism. We do know that if any of Q’s characterizations provides an adequate basis for sound criticism, it must not be an imprecise characterization. But (B) gets that relationship backward.

All of the characterizations of Dr. Z’s work by Dr. Q that do not provide an adequate basis for sound criticism of Dr. Z’s work are imprecise.

Unsupported. This gets the sufficient and necessary conditions backward. The stimulus says that if a characterization is imprecise, it fails to provide an adequate basis for sound criticism. We don’t know if the reverse relationship is also true.

If the characterization of someone’s work is precise, then it provides a sound basis for criticizing that work.

Unsupported. We’re given no information on what provides a sound basis for criticism. Also, the stimulus only addresses what’s true of Z’s work—we don’t know what’s true of “someone’s work” more generally.

At least one of Dr. Q’s characterizations of Dr. Z’s work fails to provide an adequate basis for sound criticism of that work.

Very strongly supported. Many (i.e., some, meaning one or more) of Q’s characterizations are imprecise, and an imprecise characterization always fails to provide an adequate basis for sound criticism of Z’s work.

LSAT 101 – Section 3 – Question 15

LSAT 101 - Section 3 - Question 15

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

J.Y.’s explanation

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 101 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Leave a Reply Cancel