LSAT 106 – Section 1 – Question 19

LSAT 106 - Section 1 - Question 19

June 1999

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

Target time: 1:13

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
PT106 S1 Q19	+LR	Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw Fact v. Belief v. Knowledge +FvBvK	A 90% 168 B 3% 162 C 2% 158 D 3% 161 E 1% 159	140 148 156	+Medium	152.148 +SubsectionHarder

J.Y.’s explanation

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

The postmodern view involves the rejection of modern assumptions about order and the universality of truth. The grand theories of the modern era are now seen as limited by the social and historical contexts in which they were elaborated. Also, the belief in order has given way to a belief in the importance of irregularity and chaos. It follows that we inhabit a world full of irregular events, and in which there are no universal truths.

Summarize Argument

The author concludes that there are no universal truths and the world is full of irregular events. She supports this by saying that the postmodern view rejects ideas of order and universal truth, emphasizing instead a belief in chaos and irregularity.

Identify and Describe Flaw

This is the cookie-cutter “fact vs. belief” flaw, where the author incorrectly assumes that because a large group of people believe something to be true, it must be a factual reality. In short, she essentially claims, “Postmodernists believe X. Therefore, X is true.”

On top of this, the author subtly contradicts herself. By claiming that there are no universal truths, the author attempts to make a universally true claim.

infers that something is the case because it is believed to be the case

The author infers that the postmodern view is factually the case, simply because it is believed to be the case. But other people’s belief in the view is not evidence that it is actually correct or true.

uses the term “universal” ambiguously

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of “equivocation,” where the author uses one term to mean multiple different things. But the other uses “universal” consistently, and (B) doesn’t describe the flaw in her argument.

relies on the use of emotional terms to bolster its conclusion

The author mistakes belief for fact, but she isn’t relying on emotional terms to strengthen her conclusion or manipulate her audience.

uses the term “order” ambiguously

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of “equivocation,” where the author uses one term to mean multiple different things. But the other uses “order” consistently, and (D) doesn’t describe the flaw in her argument.

fails to cite examples of modern theories that purport to embody universal truths

It’s true that the author doesn’t provide examples of modern theories, but this doesn’t weaken her argument, so it can’t be the flaw. Her conclusion is about the postmodern view; she only refers to the modern view contextually.

LSAT 106 – Section 1 – Question 19

LSAT 106 - Section 1 - Question 19

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

J.Y.’s explanation

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 106 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Leave a Reply Cancel