LSAT 105 – Section 1 – Question 26

LSAT 105 - Section 1 - Question 26

February 1999

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:30

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
PT105 S1 Q26
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
A
1%
160
B
3%
158
C
9%
162
D
79%
167
E
8%
166
135
149
164
 +Medium 147.243 +SubsectionMedium

Marion knows that the bridge on her usual route is closed and that, unless she takes the train instead of driving, she can get to work on time only by leaving at least 45 minutes early. She must go to her neighborhood bank before leaving for work, however, and the bank will not be open in time for her to do so if she leaves 45 minutes early. Therefore, since she hates taking the train, Marion cannot avoid being late for work.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that Marion can’t avoid being late for work. He supports this with four premises:

(1) Marion hates taking the train.

(2) If she doesn’t take the train, she must leave 45 minutes early to be on time for work.

(3) If she leaves 45 minutes early, her bank won’t be open yet.

(4) She must stop at her bank before leaving for work (so she can’t leave 45 minutes early).

Identify and Describe Flaw
The author never establishes that Marion will drive to work. Instead, he assumes that Marion won't take the train simply because she hates it, without providing any other evidence. Marion could still take the train, even if she dislikes it, and she might then have enough time to visit the bank and be on time for work.

A
mistakes a situation that almost certainly affects many people for one that affects a particular person alone
The bridge closure may affect many people, but the author’s conclusion is based on premises about Marion’s schedule and needs. He’s not mistaking a situation that affects many people for one that affects Marion alone because he’s only addressing Marion’s particular situation.
B
ignores the fact that people often know that something is the case without considering all the consequences that follow from its being the case
This doesn’t point out the assumption that, just because Marion hates the train, she won’t take the train. Also, the argument is only about whether Marion will be late for work; the author doesn’t need to consider all the consequences of her being late.
C
assumes without justification that because people generally have an interest in avoiding a given result, any particular person will have an interest in avoiding that result
This is the cookie-cutter “whole-to-part” flaw. But like (A), the author’s conclusion is based on premises about Marion’s schedule and needs, not on premises about people in general.
D
treats evidence that someone will adopt a particular course of action as though that evidence excluded the possibility of an alternative course of action
Marion hates the train. The author takes this evidence to mean that she won’t take the train and will drive instead. He mistakenly uses this to exclude the alternative possibility that she might still take the train, despite hating it.
E
overlooks the possibility that someone might occasionally adopt a given course of action without having a good reason for doing so
The author isn’t assuming that Marion won’t take the train because she doesn’t have a good reason for doing it. Instead, he’s assuming that Marion won’t take the train because she hates taking the train.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 105 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply