LSAT 134 – Section 3 – Question 04

LSAT 134 - Section 3 - Question 04

October 2011

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
PT134 S3 Q04
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Conditional Reasoning +CondR
A
0%
155
B
96%
165
C
0%
151
D
0%
152
E
3%
156
125
134
144
 +Easiest 146.872 +SubsectionMedium

Journalist: A manufacturers’ trade group that has long kept its membership list secret inadvertently sent me a document listing hundreds of manufacturing companies. A representative of the trade group later confirmed that every company listed in the document does indeed belong to the trade group. Because Bruch Industries is not listed on the document, it is evidently not a member of the trade group.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that Bruch Industries isn’t a member of the trade group. This is based on the fact that every company listed in a particular document belongs to the trade group, and Bruch Industries isn’t listed in that document.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The author confuses a sufficient condition for being in the trade group with a necessary condition. Being on the list is sufficient to know that a company is in the trade group, because every company listed is a member of the trade group. But that doesn’t mean being on the list is required to be a member. It’s possible for a company to be a member even if it’s not on the list. In other words, “Every company on the list is in the group” does not imply “every company in the group is on the list.”

A
gives no reason to think that Bruch Industries would want to belong to the trade group
Bruch’s desires are irrelevant to the argument. The argument concerns whether the company is a member of the trade group, not whether it wants to be.
B
does not present any evidence that the document names every member of the trade group
The author fails to show that the document lists all of the members of the group. That’s why not being listed in the document doesn’t imply lack of membership in the group.
C
does not explain how it is that the trade group could have inadvertently sent out a secret document
It doesn’t matter how the author got the secret document. We know the document exists and the trade group confirmed that everyone on the list is a member of the group.
D
presents no reason why Bruch Industries would not want its membership in the trade group to be known
Brush’s desires are irrelevant to the argument. The argument concerns whether Brush is a member of the group, not whether it would want its membership to be known.
E
takes for granted the accuracy of a statement by a representative who had a reason to withhold information
The representative confirmed that every company listed in the document is a member of the group. The reasoning isn’t flawed because the author accepts the representative’s confirmation. We have no reason to think this confirmation is inaccurate.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 134 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply