LSAT 152 – Section 1 – Question 15

LSAT 152 - Section 1 - Question 15

November 2018

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:22

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
PT152 S1 Q15
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Conditional Reasoning +CondR
A
79%
163
B
11%
156
C
7%
155
D
1%
152
E
2%
149
139
149
158
 +Medium 148.23 +SubsectionMedium

It has been said that understanding a person completely leads one to forgive that person entirely. If so, then it follows that complete self-forgiveness is beyond our reach, for complete self-understanding, however desirable, is unattainable.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that complete self-forgiveness is unattainable. He supports this by saying that completely understanding someone leads to completely forgiving them, but complete self-understanding is unattainable.

Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of mistaking sufficiency and necessity. The author concludes that complete self-forgiveness is unattainable because complete self-understanding is unattainable. In doing so, he treats “understanding” as necessary for “forgiveness.” But according to his premises, “understanding” is merely sufficient. So negating “understanding” tells us nothing about “forgiveness.”
In other words, the author treats complete understanding as the only way to bring about forgiveness. But maybe it’s possible to forgive yourself completely, even though you can’t understand yourself completely.

A
treats the failure to satisfy a condition that brings about a particular outcome as if satisfying that condition is the only way to realize the outcome
The author treats the failure to satisfy “understanding,” which is sufficient to bring about “forgiveness,” as if satisfying “understanding” is the only way to bring about “forgiveness.” But what if self-forgiveness is attainable, even though self-understanding is not?
B
confuses something that is necessary for an action to occur with something that necessarily results from that action
Actually, the author confuses something that is sufficient for an action to occur with something that is necessary for that action to occur. He doesn’t confuse a conditional claim with a causal claim like (B) suggests.
C
takes for granted that something that has merely been said to be true is, in fact, true
The author doesn't assume that it’s true that complete understanding leads to complete forgiveness merely because it has been said to be true. He just says that if this is true, then complete self-forgiveness is unattainable.
D
ignores the possibility that a state of affairs is desirable even if it cannot be attained
The argument is about whether complete self-forgiveness and understanding are possible, not whether they are desirable. Also the author seems to acknowledge that complete self-understanding is desirable, even though it’s unattainable.
E
uses the difficulty of attaining a state of affairs as a reason for not attempting to attain it
The author doesn't make any claims about whether one should or should not attempt to attain self-forgiveness and understanding. Also, he doesn’t argue that self-forgiveness and understanding are simply difficult; he argues that they’re unattainable.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 152 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply