LSAT 134 – Section 3 – Question 14

LSAT 134 - Section 3 - Question 14

October 2011

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

Target time: 1:37

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 Q14	+LR	Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw Lack of Support v. False Conclusion +LSvFC	A 43% 167 B 6% 159 C 13% 160 D 27% 163 E 11% 163	155 168 180	+Hardest	146.872 +SubsectionMedium

Newspaper subscriber: Arnot’s editorial argues that by making certain fundamental changes in government we would virtually eliminate our most vexing social ills. But clearly this conclusion is false. After all, the argument Arnot makes for this claim depends on the dubious assumption that government can be trusted to act in the interest of the public.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position

The author concludes that Arnot’s conclusion is false. This is based on the fact that the argument Arnot made advocating his conclusion was based on the highly doubtful assumption that the government can be trusted to act in the interest of the public.

Identify and Describe Flaw

The author assumes that the fact Arnot’s argument relied on an assumption that’s likely to be false proves that Arnot’s conclusion is wrong. But Arnot’s conclusion can still be correct, even if Arnot’s assumption is wrong.

it repudiates a claim merely on the grounds that an inadequate argument has been given for it

Arnot’s argument was inadequate in that his premises didn’t prove his conclusion, because he made a dubious assumption. But the fact his argument is inadequate doesn’t justify rejecting his conclusion. The author made this very mistake, however, and rejected Arnot’s conclusion.

it treats a change that is required for virtual elimination of society’s most vexing social ills as a change that will guarantee the virtual elimination of those ills

The author’s position is that we cannot eliminate our most vexing social ills by making changes to government. So the author doesn’t treat government changes as enough to guarantee elimination of those social ills.

it fails to consider that, even if an argument’s conclusion is false, some of the assumptions used to justify that conclusion may nonetheless be true

The author assumed “false assumption → false conclusion”. This overlooks that even if an ASSUMPTION is false, the conclusion can be true. (C) accuses the argument of assuming “false conclusion → false assumption.” That’s just reversing the argument’s actual assumption.

it distorts the opponent’s argument and then attacks this distorted argument

There’s no indication that the author distorted Arnot’s argument. We don’t know what Arnot originally argued or whether the author’s description of that argument is different from what Arnot originally argued.

it uses the key term “government” in one sense in a premise and in another sense in the conclusion

The word “government” means the same thing throughout. We have no reason to think it takes on different meanings in the argument.

Arnot's conclusion: making fundamental changes to our government will eliminate social ills.

Please note that we are not presented with Arnot's premises. Only his conclusion. In other words, we don't have Arnot's argument.

Author's conclusion: making fundamental changes to our government will NOT eliminate social ills.
Author's premise: Arnot's argument [which we didn't get to see] for "this claim" [references "Arnot's conclusion"] makes a bad assumption. That's fine. Arnot may well have made an unreasonable assumption. That doesn't mean that the author has proved anything about "making fundamental changes to our government will or will NOT eliminate social ills." The author only showed us that a person made a bad argument.

Let's say I make a really shitty argument for the claim that "nuclear world war would be really bad for everyone." You call me out on my argument being shitty. Specifically, you claim that I made a bad assumption in my argument. Okay. Does that mean that therefore "the conclusion is obviously false"? In other words, it doesn't mean that you've proven "nuclear world war would NOT be really bad for everyone". You just showed that I made a bad argument.

The question of whether "nuclear world war would be really bad for everyone" is still up in the air.

You can see why you can't just say "You made a bad argument for X. Therefore, not X is obviously true."

LSAT 134 – Section 3 – Question 14

LSAT 134 - Section 3 - Question 14

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 134 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Leave a Reply Cancel