LSAT 128 – Section 3 – Question 24

LSAT 128 - Section 3 - Question 24

December 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: 1:21

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
PT128 S3 Q24
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Link Assumption +LinkA
A
19%
165
B
52%
169
C
2%
157
D
26%
164
E
1%
152
154
166
177
 +Hardest 145.461 +SubsectionMedium

J.Y.’s explanation

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


Live Commentary

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

Historian: The revolutionary party has been accused of having many overambitious goals and of having caused great suffering. However, most of the party’s goals were quickly achieved and the party did not have enough power to cause the suffering the critics claim it caused. So it is clear that the party was not overambitious and caused no suffering.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the revolutionary party was not overambitious and caused NO suffering. This is based on the fact that most of the party’s goals were achieved quickly and that the party didn’t have enough power to cause GREAT suffering.

Identify and Describe Flaw
There are two key assumptions. First, the author assumes that achieving most goals quickly implies that there weren’t many overambitious goals. This overlooks the possibility that there were a lot of goals that the party still didn’t achieve. Second, the author assumes that not being able to cause GREAT suffering implies that the party caused NO suffering. This overlooks the possibility that the party still caused some suffering, even if it wasn’t great.

A
gives mutually inconsistent responses to the two criticisms
There’s nothing contradictory about claiming that the party achieved most goals and that it didn’t have enough power to cause great suffering. Both can be true.
B
fails to establish that the revolutionary party caused no suffering
The author’s premises establish that the party didn’t cause GREAT suffering. But this doesn’t establish what the conclusion asserts — that the party caused NO suffering.
C
fails to establish that any of the revolutionary party’s critics underestimated the party’s power
The argument didn’t need to establish anything about the critics of the revolutionary party. The critics’ claims are mentioned purely as context in the first sentence; the argument’s reasoning doesn’t rely on critics’ perceptions of the party.
D
provides no evidence that the revolutionary party’s goals were not overambitious
The author does provide some evidence that the goals were not overambitious — the party achievedmost of its goals quickly. This evidence doesn’t prove that the party was not overambitious, but it does constitute at least some evidence it wasn’t ambitious.
E
fails to consider other major criticisms of the revolutionary party
The argument didn’t need to consider other major criticisms. It focusd on two particular criticisms about being overambitious and causing great suffering and tried to rebut those points. But the argument doesn’t take a position on any other issues.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 128 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply