LSAT 122 – Section 2 – Question 05

LSAT 122 - Section 2 - Question 05

June 2006

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

Target time: 0:55

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
PT122 S2 Q05	+LR	Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw Value Judgment +ValJudg	A 79% 164 B 5% 163 C 7% 160 D 4% 159 E 4% 154	126 143 159	+Medium	146.896 +SubsectionMedium

Letter to the editor: Middle-class families in wealthy nations are often criticized for the ecological damage resulting from their lifestyles. This criticism should not be taken too seriously, however, since its source is often a movie star or celebrity whose own lifestyle would, if widely adopted, destroy the environment and deplete our resources in a short time.

criticizes a characteristic of the people giving an argument rather than criticizing the argument itself

The author attacks the lifestyle of celebrities and movie stars who often criticize middle-class families, rather than addressing their criticism of middle-class families itself. He never actually provides any evidence for why that criticism should not be taken too seriously.

takes failure to act consistently with a belief as an indication of the sincerity with which that belief is held

The author never argues that the celebrities and movie stars do not sincerely hold the belief that middle-class families should be criticized for their lifestyles. Even if he did, (B) wouldn’t describe a flaw in his argument.

presumes that a viewpoint must be unreasonable to accept simply because some of the grounds advanced to support it do not adequately do so

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing a lack of support for a conclusion with proof that the conclusion is false. The author doesn’t make this mistake; he never addresses or attacks any support for the celebrities’ criticism.

fails to recognize that evidence advanced in support of a conclusion actually undermines that conclusion

The author never provides any real evidence in support of his conclusion. The claim that celebrities’ lifestyles are environmentally damaging doesn’t support his conclusion, but it also doesn't undermine it.

generalizes about the behavior of all people on the basis of the behavior of a few

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of hasty generalization. The author doesn't make this mistake. He doesn’t generalize about the behavior of all people, he just claims that the criticism against middle-class families shouldn’t be taken too seriously.

Cookie Cutter Review
Flaw - source or character attack (A)
(B) conflation of distinct ideas
(C) failure to prove X confused with proof of not X
(D) evidence against X confused with evidence for X
(E) too small sample size / over-generalization

LSAT 122 – Section 2 – Question 05

LSAT 122 - Section 2 - Question 05

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 122 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Leave a Reply Cancel