Sections 2

Mary to Jamal: You acknowledge that as the legitimate owner of this business I have the legal right to sell it whenever I wish. But also you claim that because loyal employees will suffer if I sell it, I therefore have no right to do so. Obviously, your statements taken together are absurd.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position

Mary concludes that Jamal’s statements are absurd when taken together because he claims that she has the legal right to sell her business, but that she has no right to do so because employees will suffer.

Identify and Describe Flaw

Mary’s reasoning is vulnerable to criticism because she overlooks the possibility that Jamal is using two different senses of the word “right.” When he says she has the legal right to sell the business, he means it in a legal sense. But when he says she has "no right" to sell it, he’s referring to a moral right, suggesting that selling the business wouldn't be the right thing to do. Because of this, his argument isn’t actually contradictory or absurd.

A

overlooks the possibility that when Jamal claims that she has no right to sell the business, he simply means she has no right to do so at this time

Even if Jamal does mean that Mary has no moral right to sell the business at this time, it wouldn't weaken the claim that his statements taken together are absurd. He’s still claiming that she has the right to sell anytime, but no right to sell at this time.

B

overlooks the possibility that her employees also have rights related to the sale of the business

The argument is only addressing Mary’s rights. But even if her employees do have rights related to the sale of the business, it wouldn’t impact Mary’s conclusion that Jamal’s statements are absurd because they’re contradictory.

C

provides no evidence for the claim that she does have a right to sell the business

Mary actually does provide evidence to support the claim that she has a legal right to sell the business— the fact that she’s its legitimate owner.

D

overlooks the possibility that Jamal is referring to two different kinds of right

If Jamal is referring to a legal right in one statement and a moral right in the other, then his statements are not actually absurd when taken together. Mary can have the legal right to sell even though selling is not the right thing to do.

E

attacks Jamal’s character rather than his argument

This the cookie-cutter “ad hominem” flaw, where the author attacks the source of an argument rather than the argument itself. Mary doesn’t make this mistake. She claims that Jamal’s statements are absurd when taken together, not that Jamal himself is absurd.

13 comments

LSAT 142 - Section 2 - Question 02

May 13, 2012

4 comments

LSAT 142 - Section 2 - Question 03

May 13, 2012

Commentator: If a political administration is both economically successful and successful at protecting individual liberties, then it is an overall success. Even an administration that fails to care for the environment may succeed overall if it protects individual liberties. So far, the present administration has not cared for the environment but has successfully protected individual liberties.

Summary

The stimulus can be diagrammed as follows:

Notable Valid Inferences

If the present administration is economically successful, then it is an overall success.

A

The present administration is economically successful.

Could be false. Based on the information in the stimulus, there’s no reason to believe that the administration is economically successful or that it is not.

B

The present administration is not an overall success.

Could be false. The stimulus tells us that the present administration satisfies half the sufficient condition for overall success, and it does not tell us whether or not it satisfies the other half. If it is economically successful, then it’s an overall success and (B) is false.

C

If the present administration is economically successful, then it is an overall success.

Must be true. We know that the present administration has protected individual liberties, and (C) tells us that it’s also been economically successful. As shown below, these two conditions combine to form the sufficient condition for overall success.

D

If the present administration had been economically successful, it would have cared for the environment.

Could be false. In this question, caring for the environment is a bit of a red herring: it is not part of the sufficient condition or the necessary condition, and we can neither use it to draw a valid conclusion nor conclude anything about it.

E

If the present administration succeeds at environmental protection, then it will be an overall success.

Could be false. In this question, caring for or protecting the environment is a bit of a red herring: it is not part of the sufficient condition or the necessary condition, and we can neither use it to draw a valid conclusion nor conclude anything about it.

10 comments