LSAT 142 – Section 2 – Question 01

LSAT 142 - Section 2 - Question 01

December 2014

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 0:54

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
PT142 S2 Q01
+LR
+Exp
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
A
3%
157
B
8%
159
C
1%
152
D
88%
164
E
0%
151
126
138
151
 +Easier 146.338 +SubsectionMedium

Mary to Jamal: You acknowledge that as the legitimate owner of this business I have the legal right to sell it whenever I wish. But also you claim that because loyal employees will suffer if I sell it, I therefore have no right to do so. Obviously, your statements taken together are absurd.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Mary concludes that Jamal’s statements are absurd when taken together because he claims that she has the legal right to sell her business, but that she has no right to do so because employees will suffer.

Identify and Describe Flaw
Mary’s reasoning is vulnerable to criticism because she overlooks the possibility that Jamal is using two different senses of the word “right.” When he says she has the legal right to sell the business, he means it in a legal sense. But when he says she has "no right" to sell it, he’s referring to a moral right, suggesting that selling the business wouldn't be the right thing to do. Because of this, his argument isn’t actually contradictory or absurd.

A
overlooks the possibility that when Jamal claims that she has no right to sell the business, he simply means she has no right to do so at this time
Even if Jamal does mean that Mary has no moral right to sell the business at this time, it wouldn't weaken the claim that his statements taken together are absurd. He’s still claiming that she has the right to sell anytime, but no right to sell at this time.
B
overlooks the possibility that her employees also have rights related to the sale of the business
The argument is only addressing Mary’s rights. But even if her employees do have rights related to the sale of the business, it wouldn’t impact Mary’s conclusion that Jamal’s statements are absurd because they’re contradictory.
C
provides no evidence for the claim that she does have a right to sell the business
Mary actually does provide evidence to support the claim that she has a legal right to sell the business— the fact that she’s its legitimate owner.
D
overlooks the possibility that Jamal is referring to two different kinds of right
If Jamal is referring to a legal right in one statement and a moral right in the other, then his statements are not actually absurd when taken together. Mary can have the legal right to sell even though selling is not the right thing to do.
E
attacks Jamal’s character rather than his argument
This the cookie-cutter “ad hominem” flaw, where the author attacks the source of an argument rather than the argument itself. Mary doesn’t make this mistake. She claims that Jamal’s statements are absurd when taken together, not that Jamal himself is absurd.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 142 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply