LSAT 114 – Section 2 – Question 20

LSAT 114 - Section 2 - Question 20

October 2002

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 0:29

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
PT114 S2 Q20
+LR
+Exp
Method of reasoning or descriptive +Method
Rule-Application +RuleApp
Value Judgment +ValJudg
Analogy +An
A
88%
167
B
9%
158
C
0%
156
D
2%
155
E
1%
150
139
148
156
 +Medium 145.502 +SubsectionMedium

J.Y.’s explanation

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

Professor Beckstein: American Sign Language is the native language of many North Americans. Therefore, it is not a foreign language, and for that reason alone, no student should be permitted to satisfy the university’s foreign language requirement by learning it.

Professor Sedley: According to your argument, students should not be allowed to satisfy the university’s foreign language requirement by learning French or Spanish either, since they too are the native languages of many North Americans. Yet many students currently satisfy the requirement by studying French or Spanish, and it would be ridiculous to begin prohibiting them from doing so.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Professor Sedley concludes Professor Beckstein’s claim that students should not be able to satisfy the foreign language requirement with American Sign Language is ridiculous. To support his claim, Sedley points out that learning French or Spanish should also not satisfy the requirement because French and Spanish are native languages to many North Americans. Yet many students currently do satisfy the foreign language requirement by learning French or Spanish.

Describe Method of Reasoning
Professor Sedley counters the position held by Professor Beckstein. He does this by describing an analogous argument with an obviously absurd conclusion.

A
attempting to demonstrate that the reasoning used to reach a certain conclusion leads to another conclusion that is undesirable
The reasoning used by Beckstein is that a student should not be able to satisfy the foreign language requirement with a language that is native to North Americans. Sedley, by way of analogy, demonstrates that this reasoning would also exclude French and Spanish.
B
trying to show that a certain conclusion contradicts some of the evidence used to support it
Sedley does not show that the evidence used by Beckstein contradicts his conclusion. In fact, Sedley accepts Beckstein’s evidence and constructs it into an analogous argument.
C
questioning an opponent’s authority to address the issue under discussion
Sidley does not question Beckstein’s authority. He addresses Beckstein’s argument directly without focusing on personal characteristics.
D
offering an alternative explanation of the facts used to arrive at a specific conclusion
Sidley does not propose an alternative explanation why American Sign Language should not satisfy the foreign language requirement.
E
agreeing with the conclusion of a particular argument while rejecting the evidence used to support the conclusion
Sidley does not agree with Beckstein’s conclusion. In fact, he disagrees with Beckstein’s conclusion and implies students should be able to satisfy the foreign language requirement by learning American Sign Language.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 114 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply