LSAT 101 – Section 2 – Question 06

LSAT 101 - Section 2 - Question 06

December 1997

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

Target time: 1:00

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
PT101 S2 Q06	+LR	Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw Value Judgment +ValJudg	A 2% 160 B 1% 162 C 86% 168 D 8% 163 E 4% 162	131 144 157	+Medium	150.088 +SubsectionMedium

Several excellent candidates have been proposed for the presidency of United Wire, and each candidate would bring to the job different talents and experience. If the others are compared with Jones, however, it will be apparent that none of them has her unique set of qualifications. Jones, therefore, is best qualified to be the new president of United Wire.

Summarize Argument

The author concludes that Jones is the best qualified, because none of the other candidates has the same set of qualifications as Jones.

Identify and Describe Flaw

The conclusion is that Jones is the best qualified, but the support is merely that she has different qualifications from the other candidates. What makes her unique set of qualifications better than anyone else’s qualifications? The author doesn’t say, so his argument fails to provide evidence that supports the comparison made in the conclusion.

Moreover, the author notes that everyone has a unique set of qualifications. So the reason for choosing Jones—unique qualifications—equally applies to every other candidate. The argument singles out one member of a set based on a trait held by all members of that set.

uses flattery to win over those who hold an opposing position

No opposing position is identified. And although the author notes that Jones is the “best qualified,” nothing suggests that this is flattery—rather, this is simply the author’s conclusion about who the best candidate is.

refutes a distorted version of an opposing position

No opposing position is identified or refuted.

seeks to distinguish one member of a group on the basis of something that applies to all

The author tries to distinguish Jones as the best candidate on the basis of something—unique qualifications—that applies to all candidates. This is a flaw; if all candidates, like Jones, have unique qualifications, then we’re given no reason to choose Jones over anyone else.

supports a universal claim on the basis of a single example

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of overgeneralization. But the author doesn’t make a generalized or universal claim. His conclusion is a claim specifically about one candidate, and he supports that claim on the basis of a consideration of all candidates.

describes an individual in terms that appropriately refer only to the group as a whole

This is the cookie-cutter “whole to part” flaw, where a trait belonging to a group is inappropriately applied to a single member. The author doesn’t do this—he describes each candidate in terms of her qualifications, which is a trait that rightly applies to individuals.

LSAT 101 – Section 2 – Question 06

LSAT 101 - Section 2 - Question 06

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

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 101 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Leave a Reply Cancel