LSAT 125 – Section 2 – Question 10

LSAT 125 - Section 2 - Question 10

June 2008

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 0:53

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
PT125 S2 Q10
+LR
Method of reasoning or descriptive +Method
Analogy +An
A
0%
151
B
92%
163
C
1%
153
D
4%
156
E
3%
157
124
135
146
 +Easier 145.417 +SubsectionEasier

Helen: Reading a book is the intellectual equivalent of investing money: you’re investing time, thereby foregoing other ways of spending that time, in the hope that what you learn will later afford you more opportunities than you’d get by spending the time doing something other than reading that book.

Randi: But that applies only to vocational books. Reading fiction is like watching a sitcom: it’s just wasted time.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Randi concludes that reading books is only an intellectual investment if those books are vocational. This qualifies Helen’s general claim that reading a book in hopes that it will lead to gains later on makes reading similar to investing money. To support this qualification, Randi says that reading fiction is a waste of time, comparable to watching sitcoms.

Describe Method of Reasoning
Randi argues that Helen’s analogy cannot be accurately drawn between two kinds of action, because not all the instances of one action are analogous to the other action. By claiming that reading fiction is analogous to watching a sitcom instead of to financial investment, Randi undermines the strength of Helen’s general analogy between book-reading and investment.

A
questioning how the evidence Helen uses for a claim was gathered
Randi does not question Helen’s evidence-gathering, only her theoretical reasoning. In fact, neither Helen nor Randi really presents gathered evidence at all.
B
disputing the scope of Helen’s analogy by presenting another analogy
By presenting an analogy between reading fiction and watching sitcoms, Randi claims that only reading certain (vocational) books can be compared to investing. This is how Randi disputes the scope of Helen’s analogy between reading and investing.
C
arguing that Helen’s reasoning ultimately leads to an absurd conclusion
Randi does not argue that Helen’s reasoning leads to an absurd conclusion, only that Helen’s reasoning is flawed because Helen’s analogy is too broad.
D
drawing an analogy to an example presented by Helen
Randi does not draw an analogy to an example presented by Helen. Randi only analogizes to a new example: watching sitcoms.
E
denying the relevance of an example presented by Helen
Randi does not deny the relevance of any part of Helen’s argument, just claims that its scope is too general.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 125 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply