LSAT 103 – Section 2 – Question 17

LSAT 103 - Section 2 - Question 17

September 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: 1:28

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 Q17
+LR
Except +Exc
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Fact v. Belief v. Knowledge +FvBvK
A
10%
163
B
68%
169
C
16%
164
D
1%
158
E
5%
161
147
158
170
 +Harder 149.468 +SubsectionMedium

J.Y.’s explanation

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

Commissioner: I have been incorrectly criticized for having made my decision on the power plant issue prematurely. I based my decision on the report prepared by the neighborhood association and, although I have not studied it thoroughly, I am sure that the information it contains is accurate. Moreover, you may recall that when I received input from the neighborhood association on jail relocation, I agreed with its recommendation.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The commissioner concludes that critics are incorrect to claim that a decision about a power plant was premature. Why? Because the decision was based on a neighborhood association report, which the commissioner is certain contains accurate information (even though the commissioner hasn’t read it closely). Also, the commissioner agreed with a previous recommendation from this association about a different issue.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The commissioner concludes that a decision was not premature, even though it was based on a single report which the commissioner hadn’t studied closely. This is supported only by a baseless assurance that the report is accurate, and a favorable view of a previous report on a different issue.

The overarching flaw is that the commissioner relies too much on a single, unverified report by an organization of unknown reliability.

A
It takes for granted that the association’s information is not distorted by bias.
The commissioner accepts the association’s report as the only necessary basis for a decision, but offers no assurance that the association is not biased.
B
It draws a conclusion about the recommendations of the association from incomplete recollections.
The commissioner does not appear to have an incomplete recollection of the association’s recommendation. Also, the conclusion is about whether the decision was hasty, not about the recommendation itself.
C
It takes for granted that the association’s report is the only direct evidence that needed to be considered.
The commissioner uses the association’s report as the only basis for a decision, without ever mentioning the possibility of considering other evidence or explaining why other evidence is not necessary.
D
It hastily concludes that the association’s report is accurate, without having studied it in detail.
The commissioner claims to be “sure” that the report is accurate, but admits to having not studied it in detail. However, without having studied the report in detail, the commissioner cannot really be sure of its accuracy.
E
It takes for granted that agreeing with the association’s past recommendation helps to justify agreeing with its current recommendation.
The commissioner uses an agreement with a past report to defend the use of the association’s current recommendation as the only basis for a decision. However, the past report does not guarantee the quality of the present recommendation.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 103 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply