LSAT 103 – Section 3 – Question 10

LSAT 103 - Section 3 - Question 10

September 1998

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:07

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
PT103 S3 Q10
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Lack of Support v. False Conclusion +LSvFC
A
3%
163
B
10%
166
C
4%
162
D
82%
167
E
0%
138
120
135
157
 +Easier 148.537 +SubsectionMedium

Tires may be either underinflated, overinflated, or neither. We are pretty safe in assuming that underinflation or overinflation of tires harms their tread. After all, no one has been able to show that these do not harm tire tread.

Summarize Argument
The argument concludes that it’s safe to assume that either underinflating or overinflating tires damages the tires. Why? Because no one has proven that underinflation or overinflation don’t damage tires.

Identify and Describe Flaw
This is a “lack of support vs. false conclusion” flaw, where a position is taken to be false just because no one has proved that it’s true. Specifically, the argument rejects the possibility that underinflation and overinflation are harmless, just because that possibility hasn’t been proven.

A
The argument assumes what it is attempting to demonstrate.
The argument does not assume that underinflation and overinflation damage tires. There is support offered, even if that support is weak.
B
The argument overlooks that what is not in principle susceptible to proof might be false.
There isn’t anything in the argument that’s “not susceptible to proof”. No one is claiming that it’s impossible to prove whether underinflation and overinflation are harmless to tires, just that it hasn’t been proven yet.
C
The argument fails to specify how it is that underinflation or overinflation harms tire tread.
The mechanism of how tire tread might be harmed isn’t relevant to the question of whether it’s safe to assume that the tire tread will be harmed, just because no one has proven that it won’t be harmed.
D
The argument rejects the possibility that what has not been proven is nevertheless true.
The argument rejects the possibility that it might be true that underinflation and overinflation don’t damage tires, even though it hasn’t been proven. This possibility undermines the idea that it’s “safe to assume” that the tires will be damaged.
E
The argument fails to precisely define the terms “underinflation” and “overinflation.”
The exact definition of what counts as an underinflated or overinflated tire is irrelevant to whether or not those conditions are likely to damage tires, based on the fact that they haven’t been proven not to damage tires.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 103 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply