LSAT 152 – Section 4 – Question 16

LSAT 152 - Section 4 - Question 16

November 2018

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

Target time: 1:34

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 S4 Q16	+LR	Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw Lack of Support v. False Conclusion +LSvFC	A 1% 151 B 1% 148 C 7% 156 D 21% 157 E 70% 164	147 155 162	+Harder	147.181 +SubsectionMedium

Editorial: The main contention of Kramer’s book is that coal companies are to blame for our region’s economic difficulties. Kramer bases this contention primarily on allegations made by disgruntled coal company employees that the companies made no significant investments in other industries in our region. Yet the companies invested heavily—albeit sometimes indirectly—in road building and manufacturing in the region. Thus, the book’s main contention is simply false.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position

The editorial concludes that Kramer’s contention that coal companies are responsible for the region’s economic problems is false. As evidence, it suggests that Kramer’s support is weak, since coal companies did invest significantly in other industries in the region.

Identify and Describe Flaw

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of assuming a conclusion is false simply because the argument in support of that conclusion is weak.

Here, the editorial argues that Kramer’s conclusion is false simply because his support— that those companies did not invest significantly in other industries in the region— is weak. The editorial successfully weakens Kramer’s support, but this isn’t enough to prove that his conclusion is false. Maybe coal companies are still responsible for the region’s economic problems, even though they did invest in other industries.

concludes that one party is not to blame for a particular outcome merely on the grounds that another party is to blame for that outcome

The editorial does conclude that coal companies are not to blame for the economic issues, but it doesn’t do so on the grounds that some other group is to blame. Instead, it does so merely on the grounds that Kramer’s support is weak.

concludes that a person’s statement is false merely on the grounds that, if accepted as true, it would impugn the reputation of an important industry

The editorial does conclude that Kramer’s statement is false, but it doesn’t do so on the grounds that Kramer’s statement would stain the coal industry’s reputation. Instead, it concludes that Kramer’s statement is false merely on the grounds that Kramer’s support is weak.

rejects an argument merely on the grounds that the person offering the argument has an ulterior motive for doing so

This is the cookie-cutter “ad hominem” flaw, where the author attacks the source of an argument rather than the argument itself. But the editorial never claims that Kramer has ulterior motives against coal companies; it just points out that Kramer’s support is weak.

takes a sufficient condition for the coal companies’ having made significant investments in other industries in the region to be a necessary condition for their having done so

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing necessary and sufficient conditions. The editorial doesn’t make this mistake. It simply claims that the coal companies have made significant investments; it doesn't present a sufficient or a necessary condition for their having done so.

concludes that a person’s statement is false merely on the grounds that an inadequate argument has been given for it

The editorial concludes that Kramer’s statement is false merely because his support is weak. But weakening his support isn’t enough to prove that his conclusion is false. Maybe coal companies are responsible for the economic issues, even though they invested in other industries.

LSAT 152 – Section 4 – Question 16

LSAT 152 - Section 4 - Question 16

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 152 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Leave a Reply Cancel