LSAT 103 – Section 2 – Question 01

LSAT 103 - Section 2 - Question 01

September 1998

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
PT103 S2 Q01	+LR	Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw Value Judgment +ValJudg	A 0% 167 B 95% 167 C 4% 159 D 0% E 1% 160	124 135 145	+Easier	149.468 +SubsectionMedium

Insurance that was to become effective at 9 A.M. on a certain date was taken out on the life of a flight attendant. He died on that date at 10 A.M. local time, which was two hours before 9 A.M. in the time zone where the policy had been purchased. The insurance company contended that the policy had not become effective; a representative of the flight attendant’s beneficiary, his mother, countered by arguing that the policy amount should be paid because the attendant had been his mother’s sole support, and she was ill.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position

The representative concludes that the insurance company should pay out a flight attendant’s life insurance policy, even though there is a question of whether the policy had become effective when he died. In support, the representative says that the flight attendant had been the only support for his beneficiary, his mother, and that she is also ill.

Identify and Describe Flaw

The representative is trying to counter the insurance company’s argument about the timing of the policy by appealing to emotional concerns about the beneficiary. This just doesn’t address the concern raised by the insurance company.

the conclusion is no more than a paraphrase of the evidence offered in support of it

The representative’s conclusion is that the insurance company should pay out the policy, which is totally different from the supporting evidence about the beneficiary being vulnerable and ill.

it appeals to the emotion of pity rather than addressing the issue raised

The representative’s support is entirely about the beneficiary being vulnerable and ill, which attempts to evoke pity as a reason to pay out the policy. This does not address the issue of timing raised by the insurance company.

it makes an unwarranted distinction between family obligations and business obligations

The representative never makes a distinction between family and business obligations.

it substitutes an attack on a person for the giving of reasons

The representative never attacks anyone.

a cause and its effect are mistaken for each other

The representative doesn’t make any claims about cause and effect.

LSAT PrepTest 103 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course