LSAT 112 – Section 3 – Question 08

LSAT 112 - Section 3 - Question 08

December 2001

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:31

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
PT112 S3 Q08
+LR
Method of reasoning or descriptive +Method
Fact v. Belief v. Knowledge +FvBvK
A
72%
161
B
10%
153
C
2%
150
D
1%
150
E
15%
158
129
145
161
 +Medium 144.548 +SubsectionEasier

Essayist: Knowledge has been defined as a true belief formed by a reliable process. This definition has been criticized on the grounds that if someone had a reliable power of clairvoyance, we would not accept that person’s claim to know certain things on the basis of this power. I agree that we would reject such claims, but we would do so because we really do not believe in clairvoyance as a reliable process. Were we to believe in clairvoyance, we would accept knowledge claims made on the basis of it.

Summarize Argument
After defining knowledge as a true belief formed by a reliable process, the essayist concludes we would reject a person’s claim to know certain things because clairvoyance is not a reliable process. As evidence, the essayist states that if we were to believe in clairvoyance, we would accept a person’s claims of knowledge made on the basis of it.

Describe Method of Reasoning
The essayist describes an alternative reason why we would reject a person’s claim to know certain things by means of clairvoyance. He does this by shifting the reason for this belief from the claim that clairvoyance isn’t knowledge to the claim that clairvoyance is not a reliable process.

A
asserting that the objection is based on a belief about the reliability of clairvoyance rather than on the nature of knowledge or its definition
The objection is the essayist’s agreement that we would reject clairvoyance as a case of knowledge. The essayist bases this objection by stating clairvoyance is not a reliable process.
B
asserting that the case of clairvoyance is one of knowledge even though we do not really believe in clairvoyance as a reliable process
The essayist does not assert that the case of clairvoyance is knowledge. In fact, the essayist agrees we would reject this claim. The essayist only disputes the reason for why we would reject this claim.
C
arguing against the assumption that clairvoyance is unreliable
The essayist does not think that clairvoyance is reliable. In fact, the essayist asserts that clairvoyance is not a case of knowledge because it is an unreliable process.
D
explaining that the definition of knowledge is a matter of personal choice
The essayist does not factor in personal choice when it comes to determining what is knowledge. The essayist starts his argument by defining what knowledge is, and there’s no element of personal choice in this definition.
E
demonstrating that the case of clairvoyance is not a case of knowledge and does not fit the definition of knowledge
This is the essayist’s conclusion, but this answer does not describe the reasoning the essayist undertook to reach this conclusion. The reasoning addresses why the essayist is able to demonstrate these two things.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 112 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply