LSAT 123 – Section 2 – Question 20

LSAT 123 - Section 2 - Question 20

June 2007

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

Target time: 1:04

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
PT123 S2 Q20	+LR	Method of reasoning or descriptive +Method Sampling +Smpl Math +Math	A 3% 144 B 6% 145 C 7% 146 D 2% 142 E 82% 153	132 140 148	+Easier	143.659 +SubsectionEasier

Gamba: Muñoz claims that the Southwest Hopeville Neighbors Association overwhelmingly opposes the new water system, citing this as evidence of citywide opposition. The association did pass a resolution opposing the new water system, but only 25 of 350 members voted, with 10 in favor of the system. Furthermore, the 15 opposing votes represent far less than 1 percent of Hopeville’s population. One should not assume that so few votes represent the view of the majority of Hopeville’s residents.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position

Gamba concludes that a Hopeville neighborhood association’s vote opposing the new water system should not be taken as evidence that the majority of Hopeville opposes the water system. This is based on the fact that only a small minority of the neighborhood association voted at all, and that the total number of opposed voters make up an extremely small minority of the city’s population.

Describe Method of Reasoning

Gamba counters Muñoz’s claim by pointing out a problem with the sample size of Muñoz’s evidence. Gamba reasons that not enough people voted against the new water system to represent even the entire neighborhood association, let alone the entire city, so it is inappropriate for Muñoz to draw conclusions about the entire city from that vote.

questioning a conclusion based on the results of a vote, on the grounds that people with certain views are more likely to vote

Gamba doesn’t address the motivation that anyone may have to vote a certain way. He instead claims that the vote itself cannot be trusted as an accurate reflection of the city population’s views.

questioning a claim supported by statistical data by arguing that statistical data can be manipulated to support whatever view the interpreter wants to support

Gamba doesn’t argue that any data has been manipulated at all, only that the data cited is not appropriate to draw conclusions about the whole city.

attempting to refute an argument by showing that, contrary to what has been claimed, the truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion

Gamba does not discuss whether the logical structure of Muñoz’s argument is valid. His focus is on Muñoz’s evidence not being adequate support for Muñoz’s conclusion.

criticizing a view on the grounds that the view is based on evidence that is in principle impossible to disconfirm

Gamba does not claim that the evidence cited by Muñoz is impossible to disconfirm, only that it is insufficient to support Muñoz’s conclusion.

attempting to cast doubt on a conclusion by claiming that the statistical sample on which the conclusion is based is too small to be dependable

Gamba casts doubt on Muñoz’s conclusion that a majority of Hopeville opposes the new water system, by claiming that the sample of residents who voted against the system is too small to dependably represent the whole city.

LSAT 123 – Section 2 – Question 20

LSAT 123 - Section 2 - Question 20

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 123 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Leave a Reply Cancel