LSAT 108 – Section 2 – Question 18

LSAT 108 - Section 2 - Question 18

February 2000

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
PT108 S2 Q18	+LR	Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw	A 11% 165 B 85% 166 C 3% 163 D 1% 143 E 1% 145	120 135 154	+Easier	145.001 +SubsectionEasier

Sid: The sign says “Keep off the grass.”

Micki: I know, but just one person walking across the grass doesn’t hurt it.

Sid: Your statement is false. If everyone believed as you do, everyone would walk across the grass, and the grass would die.

Summarize Argument

Sid concludes that Micki’s statement is false because if everyone believed Micki’s statement, everyone would walk across the grass, and the grass would die.

Identify and Describe Flaw

Sid reasons that if everyone adhered to Micki’s belief, everyone would walk across the grass, and the grass would die. Therefore, Sid concludes that Micki’s statement is incorrect. However, Sid’s argument is questionable because Sid mischaracterizes Micki’s position.
Micki simply states that a single person walking across the grass wouldn’t hurt the grass. Sid then responds by explaining what he believes would happen if everyone walked across the grass, which has nothing to do with Micki’s assertion.

attempts to use a statement about the consequences of actions to disprove a statement about the actions themselves

Sid doesn’t attempt to use a statement about the consequences of walking across the grass to disprove a statement about the action of walking across the grass. Sid only talks about the consequences of walking across the grass, not the action of walking across the grass itself.

treats a statement about the consequences of an action as though it were instead about the consequences of everyone believing the statement

This is why Sid’s argument is flawed. Sid responds to Micki’s statement about the consequences of a single person walking across the grass as though Micki was discussing the consequences of everyone believing it’s okay to walk across the grass.

contradicts itself by treating a statement that the arguer does not believe as though it were a statement believed by everyone

Sid’s argument doesn’t contradict itself. Sid’s response to Micki mischaracterizes Micki’s statement, but Sid never discusses his own beliefs.

discounts the fact that there may be circumstances under which hurting the grass is justified

We don’t know if Sid understands that there may be situations where hurting the grass is justified. (D) has nothing to do with whether Sid is putting forth a sound argument to disprove Micki’s statement.

attempts to undermine a statement by calling into question the character of the person making the statement

This is the cookie-cutter “ad hominem” flaw, where someone attacks a person making an argument rather than attacking the argument itself. Sid doesn’t commit this flaw, as Sid never attacks Micki personally.

LSAT 108 – Section 2 – Question 18

LSAT 108 - Section 2 - Question 18

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 108 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Leave a Reply Cancel