LSAT 102 – Section 4 – Question 23

LSAT 102 - Section 4 - Question 23

June 1998

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:38

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
PT102 S4 Q23
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Conditional Reasoning +CondR
A
16%
162
B
64%
168
C
4%
162
D
15%
162
E
1%
163
149
160
171
 +Hardest 146.127 +SubsectionMedium

Only computer scientists understand the architecture of personal computers, and only those who understand the architecture of personal computers appreciate the advances in technology made in the last decade. It follows that only those who appreciate these advances are computer scientists.

Summarize Argument
Premise 1:

Understand architecture of PC → computer scientist (”only” introduces necessary condition)

Premise 2:

Appreciate tech advances → understand architecture of PC (”only” introduces necessary condition)

Conclusion:

Computer scientist → Appreciate tech advances (”only” introduces necessary condition)

Identify and Describe Flaw
The premises allow us to conclude that appreciating tech advances requires that one be a computer scientist. But the author confuses sufficient and necessary conditions of this inference. The author mistakenly thinks that being a computer scientist requires appreciating the tech advances. This overlooks the possibility that there might be some computer scientists that don’t appreciate the tech advances.

(The conclusion would have been valid if it had said “only computer scientists appreciate the tech advances.”)

A
The argument contains no stated or implied relationship between computer scientists and those who appreciate the advances in technology in the last decade.
This is false. The argument allows us to infer that appreciating the advances requires being a computer scientist.
B
The argument ignores the fact that some computer scientists may not appreciate the advances in technology made in the last decade.
The possibility described in (B) undermines the argument by showing that one can be a computer scientists without needing to appreciate the tech advances; this shows why the conclusion doesn’t have to be true.
C
The argument ignores the fact that computer scientists may appreciate other things besides the advances in technology made in the last decade.
The author never argued that computer scientists never appreciate anything else besides technology advances. So the fact allegedly ignored has no impact on the reasoning.
D
The premises of the argument are stated in such a way that they exclude the possibility of drawing any logical conclusion.
We can draw a logical conclusion — appreciating the tech advances requires being a computer scientist. The flaw isn’t that the author drew a conclusion when he shouldn’t have drawn any conclusion, it’s that the author drew an improper conclusion.
E
The premises of the argument presuppose that everyone understands the architecture of personal computers.
The first premise states that only computer scientists understand the architecture of PCs. So the argument does not assume that “everyone” (including non-computer scientists) understands the architecture of PCs.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 102 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply