LSAT 106 – Section 2 – Question 02

LSAT 106 - Section 2 - Question 02

June 1999

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 0:51

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
PT106 S2 Q02
+LR
+Exp
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Part v. Whole +PvW
A
1%
150
B
0%
155
C
92%
165
D
1%
156
E
5%
159
121
134
146
 +Easiest 147.566 +SubsectionMedium

The law firm of Sutherlin, Pérez, and Associates is one of the most successful law firms whose primary specialization is in criminal defense cases. In fact, the firm has a better than 90 percent acquittal rate in such cases. Dalton is an attorney whose primary specialization is in divorce cases, so Dalton certainly cannot be a member of Sutherlin, Pérez, and Associates.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that Dalton can’t be a member of Sutherlin, Pérez, and Associates, because his primary specialization is in divorce cases, while the firm’s is in criminal defense cases.

Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the cookie-cutter “confusing whole vs. part” flaw, otherwise known as the fallacy of division. The author assumes that, because something is true of a group as a whole, it must also be true for one part or member of that group. In other words, he assumes that, just because the firm specializes in criminal defense and Dalton does not specialize in criminal defense, Dalton cannot be a member of the firm.

A
offers in support of its conclusion pieces of evidence that are mutually contradictory
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of “internal contradiction,” where an argument contradicts itself. The author’s argument simply doesn’t make this mistake. His evidence may not support his conclusion very well, but it isn’t contradictory.
B
overlooks the possibility that a person can practice law without being a member of a law firm
This wouldn’t damage the argument, so overlooking it can’t be a flaw. The author only argues that Dalton isn’t a part of this particular firm. Whether he’s part of a different firm or no firm at all would not impact this argument.
C
concludes that someone is not a member of a group on the grounds that that person does not have a characteristic that the group as a whole has
The author concludes that Dalton isn’t a member of Sutherlin, Pérez, and Associates on the grounds that the group as a whole specializes in criminal defense, while Dalton does not.
D
takes a high rate of success among the members of a group to indicate that the successes are evenly spread among the members
The author claims that the firm is one of the most successful, but he never makes the claim that each member of the firm is equally successful.
E
states a generalization based on a selection that is not representative of the group about which the generalization is supposed to hold true
The author’s conclusion is not a generalization, it’s a specific statement about Dalton.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 106 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply