LSAT 107 – Section 3 – Question 25

LSAT 107 - Section 3 - Question 25

October 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: 1:16

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
PT107 S3 Q25
+LR
+Exp
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Conditional Reasoning +CondR
Sampling +Smpl
A
25%
164
B
42%
169
C
5%
162
D
26%
165
E
2%
166
157
171
180
 +Hardest 148.579 +SubsectionMedium

A recent survey showed that 50 percent of people polled believe that elected officials should resign if indicted for a crime, whereas 35 percent believe that elected officials should resign only if they are convicted of a crime. Therefore, more people believe that elected officials should resign if indicted than believe that they should resign if convicted.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that more people hold the belief “elected officials should resign if indicted” than the belief “elected officials should resign IF convicted.” This is based on a a survey that showed 50% of those polled believe “elected officials should resign if indicted,” and that 35% believe “elected officials should resign ONLY IF convicted.”

Identify and Describe Flaw
The author mistakenly interprets the results showing that 35% believe “elected officials should resign ONLY IF convicted” as if they show that 35% believe “elected officials should resign IF convicted.” In other words, the author confuses a statement about what’s necessary for resignation with a statement about what is sufficient for resignation. “Only if” introduces a necessary condition, not a sufficient condition.

A
draws a conclusion about the population in general based only on a sample of that population
There’s nothing inherently flawed about drawing a conclusion based on a sample. What would be flawed is relying on an unrepresentative sample, but that’s not what (A) says. In any case, we don’t have any reason to think the sample is unrepresentative.
B
confuses a sufficient condition with a required condition
The relevant survey results refer to a belief that conviction is necessary for resignation. But the author mistakenly thinks this result tells us about the belief that conviction is sufficient for resignation. This confuses a necessary condition — resignation — for a sufficient condition.
C
is based on an ambiguity of one of its terms
There is no ambiguity in any of the words used in the argument. The author does not confuse different meanings of the same term. The issue is the author misinterprets a belief that conviction is necessary for resignation as a belief that convication is sufficient for resignation.
D
draws a conclusion about a specific belief based on responses to queries about two different specific beliefs
The conclusion compares the number of people who hold two beliefs. This isn’t a conclusion “about a specific belief.” Also, although the premises involve two beliefs, one of them matches a belief mentioned in the conclusion. So there aren’t “two different specific beliefs.”
E
contains premises that cannot all be true
There is nothing contradictory about the premises. It is possible for 50% to believe officials should resign if indicted and for 35% to believe officials should resign only if convicted.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 107 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply