LSAT 113 – Section 4 – Question 22

LSAT 113 - Section 4 - Question 22

June 2002

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

Target time: 0:41

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
PT113 S4 Q22	+LR	Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw Conditional Reasoning +CondR Eliminating Options +ElimOpt	A 2% 150 B 7% 153 C 4% 153 D 2% 150 E 84% 161	137 145 153	+Medium	145.144 +SubsectionEasier

The druid stones discovered in Ireland are very, very old. But this particular druid stone was discovered in Scotland; hence, it must be of more recent vintage.

Summarize Argument

This author concludes that Scottish druid stones are not very old. He supports this statement by saying that Irish druid stones are very old.

Identify and Describe Flaw

Our author identifies two groups of druid stones: Irish and Scottish. He tells us that all Irish stones are very old. That conditional relationship might look like this: Irish → Very Old.
Then, our author concludes that because Scottish stones are not Irish, they cannot have the characteristic of being very old (/Irish → /Very Old). The author commits the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing the necessary and sufficient conditions. All that the author has told us is that Irish druid stones are very old; he hasn’t ruled out the possibility of another type of stone also being very old. Therefore, the author’s argument is unsupported.

allows a key term to shift in meaning from one use to the next

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of equivocation, where an author will argue a point hinged on a word that changes meaning. Our author doesn’t use terms that shift in meaning. The meaning of important terms in this argument stays consistent throughout.

takes the fact that most members of a group have a certain property to constitute evidence that all members of the group have that property

The author does not make a leap from most to all of a group in his argument; rather, he confuses the necessary and sufficient conditions.

takes for granted the very claim that it sets out to establish

This is a cookie-cutter answer choice referring to circular reasoning. For this to be the correct answer choice, our author would have had to assume or claim in his premises that Scottish druid stones are not very old. The author didn’t do that, so this is not correct.

presumes without justification that what was true of the members of a group in the past will continue to be true of them in the future

The author is not making predictions of the characteristics of future druid stones in their argument, but instead confusing the necessary and sufficient conditions.

takes the fact that all members of a group have a certain property to constitute evidence that the members of the group are the only things with that property

Our author establishes that all members of a group (the Irish druid stones) have a property (being very old), and uses this to say that something outside of the group (Scottish druid stones) cannot have that property (conclusion of Scottish stones not being very old).

LSAT 113 – Section 4 – Question 22

LSAT 113 - Section 4 - Question 22

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 113 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Leave a Reply Cancel