LSAT 125 – Section 4 – Question 04

LSAT 125 - Section 4 - Question 04

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: 0:45

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 S4 Q04
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Causal Reasoning +CausR
A
1%
155
B
0%
154
C
3%
154
D
94%
163
E
3%
157
120
131
143
 +Easiest 145.982 +SubsectionMedium

Ray: Cynthia claims that her car’s trunk popped open because the car hit a pothole. Yet, she also acknowledged that the trunk in that car had popped open on several other occasions, and that on none of those other occasions had the car hit a pothole. Therefore, Cynthia mistakenly attributed the trunk’s popping open to the car’s having hit a pothole.

A
fails to consider the possibility that the trunks of other cars may pop open when those cars hit potholes
The argument concerns Cynthia’s car and what caused it to pop open. The author does not have to have any belief about whether other cars’ trunks can pop open due to potholes.
B
fails to consider the possibility that potholes can have negative effects on a car’s engine
The argument concerns the cause of Cynthia’s trunk popping open. Whether the engine was affected has no bearing on the cause of the trunk popping open.
C
presumes, without providing justification, that if one event causes another, it cannot also cause a third event
The author did not reason that the trunk couldn’t have popped open from a pothole because the pothole already caused something else.
D
fails to consider the possibility that one type of event can be caused in many different ways
The author overlooks that one type of event (Cynthia’s trunk popping open) can be caused in many different ways. This points out that even if the trunk popped open for other reasons on other occasions, it could have popped open on this occasion due to a pothole.
E
presumes the truth of the claim that it is trying to establish
The author did not assume the conclusion as part of the reasoning. The reasoning involves other occasions on which the pothole popped open. It doesn’t involve a restatement of the conclusion that on this occasion the trunk didn’t pop open from a pothole.

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