LSAT 125 – Section 2 – Question 19

LSAT 125 - Section 2 - Question 19

June 2008

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:20

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
PT125 S2 Q19
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Conditional Reasoning +CondR
Causal Reasoning +CausR
Analogy +An
A
37%
160
B
2%
158
C
1%
155
D
51%
165
E
8%
160
148
162
176
 +Hardest 145.417 +SubsectionEasier

The coach of the Eagles used a computer analysis to determine the best combinations of players for games. The analysis revealed that the team has lost only when Jennifer was not playing. Although no computer was needed to discover this information, this sort of information is valuable, and in this case it confirms that Jennifer’s presence in the game will ensure that the Eagles will win.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that Jennifer’s presence in the game will ensure that the Eagles (Jennifer’s team) will win. This is based on computer analysis showing that in every game that the team has lost, Jennifer was not playing.

Identify and Describe Flaw
Although the premises establish that in all prior games, whenever Jennifer was in, the team didn’t lose (this is the contrapositive of “Team lost only when J wasn’t playing”), that doesn’t imply that this relationship must continue to be true for future games. In other words, what’s true about the past doesn’t have to be true about the future.

There’s also an assumption that in the games that the team didn’t lose, the team actually won (as opposed to having the game end in a tie).

A
infers from the fact that a certain factor is sufficient for a result that the absence of that factor is necessary for the opposite result
(A) doesn’t describe a flaw; it describes the contrapositive inference. Also, the premise didn’t establish that J’s presence “is” sufficient for not losing. It established that in PAST games, her presence WAS sufficient for the team to not lose. This doesn’t apply to the future.
B
presumes, without providing justification, that a player’s contribution to a team’s win or loss can be reliably quantified and analyzed by computer
The author doesn’t assume anything about levels of contribution to the teams’ wins and losses. He simply relies on the fact that in past games, whenever Jennifer was in, the team didn’t lose. This isn’t an attempt to say that Jennifer was 50% responsible, or 80% responsible, etc.
C
draws conclusions about applications of computer analyses to sports from the evidence of a single case
The author’s conclusion concerns whether Jennifer’s presence in a game will ensure that the team wins. The conclusion doesn’t assert anything about computer analyses in sports generally.
D
presumes, without providing justification, that occurrences that have coincided in the past must continue to coincide
The author assumes that the association between Jennifer’s presence and winning, which is something that has been true about the team’s past games, will continue to be true in the future.
E
draws a conclusion about the value of computer analyses from a case in which computer analysis provided no facts beyond what was already known
There’s nothing flawed about believing analysis is valuable even if it provides facts already known. Maybe it helped make those facts easier to interpret, or sped up calculation. Also, the premises say the analysis “revealed” something, which means something not previously known.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 125 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply