LSAT 134 – Section 1 – Question 03

LSAT 134 - Section 1 - Question 03

October 2011

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:03

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
PT134 S1 Q03
+LR
Method of reasoning or descriptive +Method
Causal Reasoning +CausR
A
1%
154
B
95%
165
C
0%
145
D
1%
153
E
3%
157
127
136
145
 +Easier 147.067 +SubsectionMedium

Political scientist: Efforts to create a more egalitarian society are often wrongly criticized on the grounds that total equality would necessarily force everyone into a common mold. Equality is presumed by such critics to require unacceptably bland uniformity. But this is not so. By promoting complementary human interests, a society can achieve a greater and more prosperous equality while enhancing rather than minimizing diversity.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The political scientist concludes that equality does not require bland uniformity, as many critics believe. She supports this by claiming that a society can achieve greater equality and enhance diversity by promoting complementary human interests.

Describe Method of Reasoning
The political scientist counters a position held by critics— that total equality would force everyone into a common mold. She does this by noting that the critics’ argument relies on the assumption that equality requires bland uniformity. She then attacks this assumption by arguing that, actually, a society can achieve greater equality and enhance diversity by promoting complementary human interests. By attacking their assumption, the political scientist undermines the critics’ argument and supports her own position.

A
undermining a view by showing that its general acceptance would lead to undesirable consequences
The political scientist does undermine a view, but she doesn’t do so by showing that its acceptance would lead to undesirable consequences. Instead, she undermines a view by attacking an assumption on which it relies.
B
rebutting an objection by attacking the assumption on which it is said to be based
The author claims that critics’ objection to total equality rests on the assumption that equality requires bland uniformity. She rebuts this objection by attacking the assumption, saying a society can achieve more equality and diversity by promoting complementary human interests.
C
attacking a view by claiming that those who propose it are motivated only by self-interest
The political scientist does attack the critics’ view, but she doesn’t make any claims about their character or suggest that they’re motivated by self-interest. Instead, she attacks an assumption on which their conclusion depends.
D
claiming that whatever is true of a group must be true of each of the members of the group
The political scientist simply doesn’t apply this method of reasoning. She doesn’t claim that something that is true of a group or set has to be true of each part of the set. Instead, she counters an argument by attacking one of its key assumptions.
E
undermining an apparent counterexample to a universal claim
The political scientist undermines a claim— that total equality forces everyone into a common mold. But she doesn’t undermine a counterexample to that claim.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 134 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply