LSAT 142 – Section 1 – Question 05

LSAT 142 - Section 1 - Question 05

December 2014

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 0:40

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
PT142 S1 Q05
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Value Judgment +ValJudg
A
0%
145
B
0%
159
C
99%
164
D
1%
152
E
0%
139
124
131
137
 +Easiest 145.991 +SubsectionMedium

Critic: Fillmore, an influential television executive, argues that watching television regularly is not detrimental to very young children. Fillmore bases this on the claim, which I grant, that children can learn much that is beneficial from television. But we should reject Fillmore’s argument, because clearly it is to Fillmore’s benefit to convince parents that television is not harmful to their children.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The critic concludes that Fillmore’s argument should be rejected because Fillmore benefits from convincing parents that watching TV is not harmful to children.

Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the cookie-cutter “ad hominem” flaw, where the author attacks the source of an argument rather than the argument itself. Here, the critic argues that Fillmore’s argument should be rejected simply because the argument benefits Fillmore. She attacks Fillmore instead of giving any reason to believe that Fillmore’s conclusion is false.

A
It takes a necessary condition for something’s being harmful to be a sufficient condition for being harmful.
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing necessary and sufficient conditions. The critic doesn't make this mistake. Her argument doesn’t rely on conditional logic; instead, it relies on an attack against Fillmore.
B
It concludes that something is true merely on the grounds that there is no evidence to the contrary.
The critic concludes that Fillmore’s argument is false merely on the grounds that the argument would benefit Fillmore. The critic never claims that there’s no evidence to contradict her own conclusion.
C
It rejects an argument solely on the grounds that the argument could serve the interests of the person making that argument.
The critic rejects Fillmore’s argument solely on the grounds that it serves the interests of Fillmore. She never provides any evidence to support her conclusion that Fillmore’s argument should be rejected. In other words, she attacks Fillmore himself, rather than his argument.
D
It is based on an appeal to the views of someone with questionable authority on the subject matter.
The critic’s argument isn’t based on an appeal to anyone’s views or authority at all. Instead, it’s based on an attack against Fillmore.
E
It bases its conclusion on claims that are inconsistent with one another.
The critic bases her conclusion on a single claim: that Fillmore benefits from convincing parents that watching TV is not harmful to children. This claim may not support her conclusion well, but it doesn’t contradict any other claim.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 142 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply