Here we have a flaw question, which we know from the question stem: “The argument above is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it…” Right away we know our correct answer has to do two things: be descriptively accurate, and describe the flaw of the stimulus. We also know what the wrong answers will do - describe reasoning flaws we’ve seen before, but don’t like up with our stimulus. Once we have a clear understanding of the questrion’s objective, we can proceed into structural analysis of the stimulus.
This stimulus begins by telling us about a debated poet. S. R. Evans explains a principle of poetic criticism; only a true poet can recognize poetry creatively. Thinking in terms of our sufficient and necessary terms we can translate this relationship: true poet (TP) → recognize creatively (RC). The next line of our stimulus adds another piece to our chain. By stating that only true poets convey poetry creatively (PC), we can link these three variables together to form: PC → TP → RC. If you possess poetic creativity, you are a true poet who can also recognize the presence of poetic creativity.
After laying out these relationships the author presents us with their conclusion. On the basis of this logical chain S. R. Evans tells us that because none of those criticizing their work express poetic creativity (~PC) we can conclude that the critics are not true poets (~TP).
Identifying the sufficient and necessary relationships in this stimulus can help us identify what is wrong with the argument. When we have a chain of three variables the only valid form we can conclude is the contrapositive: ~RC → ~TP → ~PC. The fact that our author tells us we can confirm the critics meet the necessary condition at the end of that chain (~PC) does not mean we can draw any conclusions that lead us to the term earlier in the contrapositive (~TP). Knowing our correct answer will point out the conditional reasoning issue presented in the stimulus, we can proceed into answer choice elimination.
Correct Answer Choice (A) This correct answer choice is a tricky one. At first glance it does not seem to be accusing the stimulus of the conditional reasoning flaw we have identified. Saying presupposes what it sets out to conclude would lead many to immediately assume we have a traditional circular reasoning answer choice here. But that is not quite the case. This answer choice tells us the argument is circular on the basis of a conditional reasoning mistake. This answer choice is the only descriptively correct one that points out the author is using a necessary assumption to conclude the existence of a sufficient condition earlier in the logical chain.
Answer Choice (B) This answer choice is descriptively accurate, but it is not the issue in our stimulus. It is true that our stimulus assumes everyone falls neatly onto one side of these black-and-white issues. But whether or not the author considers the existence of someone who is kinda a true poet or can sorta identify poetic creativity is not the issue; without a reference to the necessary/sufficient mix-up, this cannot be our correct answer choice.
Answer Choice (C) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. Whether or not we see an implicit claim about independence, this answer chooses to accuse the author of having no justification for such an implication. First of all - don’t we need support to be able to spot an implicit claim? This debate aside, it is not factually accurate to say we see a lack of justification for the author’s claims. The problem is that our author’s claims do not follow from the evidence presented.
Answer Choice (D) This answer choice is correct in telling us our stimulus makes an unjustified claim. But the issue is not forgetting about potential overlaps of two groups as is suggested by answer choice B. We know our correct answer is going to concern issues with conditional relationships rather than the need to recognize overlap between the groups.
Answer Choice (E) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. By saying our stimulus “inevitably leads to the conclusion that poets can never learn to improve…” This answer choice is suggesting the existence of an argument we do not see. The problem of inevitability or something being guaranteed to happen is not the issue we have. Instead, our author concludes on the basis of not having a necessary condition we can conclude we also do not have a sufficient condition.
Here we have a flaw question, which we know from the question stem: “The argument commits which one of the following errors of reasoning?” Right away we know our correct answer has to do two things: be descriptively accurate, and describe the flaw of the stimulus. We also know what the wrong answers will do - describe reasoning flaws we’ve seen before, but don’t like up with our stimulus. Once we have a clear understanding of the question’s objective, we can proceed into structural analysis of the stimulus.
We are first told about information being shared at a secret meeting. The speaker informs us that the article that forced the minister’s resignation must have come from someone present at this secret meeting between the minister, the minister’s aid, and the leader of the opposition party. Thus far the stimulus makes sense. If the article must have gotten information from the secret meeting, it must have been someone from the secret meeting who leaked the information. But that reasonable conclusion is not what our argument comes to. Rather than concluding that it must have been some participant of the secret meeting, our stimulus accuses the minister's aide of leaking the information.
This would make complete sense if it were not for the presence of the opposition leader at this secret meeting. Both the leader of the opposing party and the minister’s aid were at the meeting. The aide sure seems a lot less likely than the leader of the opposing party to leak information that would hurt the minister.
This is where we can identify the assumption being made by the argument. While our stimulus could reasonably conclude that there were two potential suspects for the leak to the newspaper, the stimulus goes one step too far and concludes it must have been one of those people in particular. Knowing our correct answer choice will in some way point out the existence of another reasonable conclusion, we can proceed into answer choice elimination.
Correct Answer Choice (A) This is exactly what we are looking for! This descriptively correct answer choice is the only option that references the existence of an interpretation of the stimulus’s evidence that is just as reasonable as the one our stimulus comes to. It is not a guarantee that the minister’s aid leaked the information. It is just as (if not more) likely the opposing party member is the source of the leak.
Answer Choice (B) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. This answer defines the conclusion of our stimulus to center on proving that “the earlier thing cannot occur” without the later idea. Nowhere does our argument tell us someone is impossible or bound to not happen like this answer choice suggests. For that reason, we can eliminate answer choice B. Every part of our answer choice – including a description of the argument’s conclusion - must line up with the content we see in stimulus.
Answer Choice (C) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. While this answer choice discusses “the same outcome on a different occasion” we do not see any reference to these ideas in our stimulus. The existence of a different occasion would require our stimulus to point out some other instance in which a newspaper leak led to someone’s downfall as the result of a secret informant.
Answer Choice (D) In order for evidence to be irrelevant, the evidence has to be completely unrelated to the discussion presented. Our evidence is not irrelevant because it does respond to the argument. By highlighting the only possible sources for the newspaper leak that led to the minister’s downfall, our stimulus uses good evidence to come to an incorrect conclusion.
Answer Choice (E) This answer choice incorrectly describes the content of our stimulus by stating our speaker argues the evidence was sufficient to bring about the result. Let’s remind ourselves of what sufficient means - that we have an event that guarantees the occurrence of some sort of necessary condition. Our argument is not saying that something is sufficient for the result. Instead of saying some factor is enough for a result, our argument has come to an incorrect assumption of what has to be the case.
Here we have a flaw question, which we know from the question stem: “Which one of the following is the strongest criticism of the chemist’s response to the physicist’s challenge?” Right away we know our correct answer has to do two things: be descriptively accurate, and describe the flaw of the stimulus. We also know what the wrong answers will do - describe reasoning flaws we’ve seen before, but don’t like up with our stimulus. Once we have a clear understanding of the questrion’s objective, we can proceed into structural analysis of the stimulus.
Immediately we should note we have two speakers in our stimulus. That means we need to be on the lookout for two potential conclusions and sets of explanations. Our first speaker, the physicist, tells us a claim about nuclear fusion is based on inaccurate calculations. While our speaker does not directly tell us the experiment is faulty as a result, the implication of the speaker’s challenge tells us they do not agree with the nuclear fusion claim on the basis of the evidence we have.
The chemist responds with the claim that the physicist’s argument is faulty. That’s not an unreasonable conclusion. If the chemist were to explain the reason why the numbers still lead to the claim we can see how the chemist can overcome the gap pointed out by our first speaker. But the chemist’s reasoning for their conclusion is not reasonable. Instead of responding to the physicist’s claim about the methods through which the claim received its evidence, the chemist accuses our first speaker of being jealous that the claim about nuclear fusion came from someone outside the field of physics.
While the chemist’s conclusion could be valid, the reasoning provided makes the chemist’s argument invalid. Knowing we are looking to identify an answer choice that emphasizes the motivations of the speaker rather than the evidence at hand, we can proceed into answer choice elimination.
Answer Choice (A) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. Instead of restating a claim in synonymous terms, our second speaker ignores the explanation of our physicist and instead attacks their personal motivations.
Answer Choice (B) This answer choice is descriptively accurate, but it is not the issue in our stimulus. Whether or not we can establish that perfect accuracy is possible does not weigh on our discussion. Even if it were possible to have perfect measurements, who is to say we need perfect measurements to ensure accuracy? Whether or not this information occurs doesn’t overcome that it is not the issue we can predict in the evidence for our second speaker’s conclusion.
Answer Choice (C) This answer choice is not descriptively accurate. In order for our argument to be confusing two different uses of one word we would have to see two instances of that word. Our chemist only references the word “solve” in one form. Thus, we can eliminate this answer choice.
Correct Answer Choice (D) This is exactly what we are looking for. This descriptively accurate answer choice is the only option that points out the chemist’s use of a personal attack rather than a response to the reasoning for the opinion being discussed.
Answer Choice (E) In order for this answer choice to be correct we need to be able to spot a contradiction - or two pieces of directly contrary information in the stimuli. Instead of a contradiction we see the chemist almost avoiding the rationale presented by the physicist.
Here we have a Method of Reasoning question, which we know from the question stem: “The sales manager counters the production manager’s argument by…”
After correctly identifying the question type we can use structural analysis to describe the Method of Reasoning used by our speaker. Immediately we should note we have two speakers in our stimulus. That means we need to be on the lookout for two conclusions and two sets of explanations. The production manager begins by explaining there are safety risks associated with the business’s current products. Thus, the production manager concludes, the company should instead produce only the new safe version of their product.
The sales manager disagrees with this position. Using a hypothetical the second speaker explains that without money, they cannot produce a safer product. This leads to the sales manager’s ultimate conclusion that the safer product cannot be a market success without continuing production of the less safe product.
Our second speaker furthers their point by laying out a hypothetical with a negative outcome - a world where we follow the production manager’s recommendations but ultimately end up without being able to produce the safer product everyone desires.
Knowing our correct answer choice will discuss the sales manager’s use of a hypothetical and the potential negative consequences of the alternative, we can proceed into answer choice elimination.
Correct Answer Choice (A) This is exactly what we are looking for! This is the only answer choice that points out what the sales manager knows is an issue – the existence of the safer product depends on the success in the market of the less safe product.
Answer Choice (B) If our speaker were challenging the authority of someone, we would anticipate language questioning someone’s qualifications or experience. Without this information we can eliminate answer choice B from consideration.
Answer Choice (C) This answer choice accuses our speaker of a conclusion far beyond what we can find in the sales manager’s argument. Instead of assuming that a product is safe because it is comparatively safer than another product, our speakers are concerned with the ability to produce the products at all.
Answer Choice (D) We do not see any sort of suggested change in standards by which the safety of these products is judged.
Answer Choice (E) There is nowhere in the discussion where we see the potential impact of technology arise as some sort of reasoning for the conclusion. Without this information, we can eliminate answer choice E.
Here we have a Method of Reasoning question, which we know from the question stem: “The argument proceeds by…”
After correctly identifying the question type we can use structural analysis to describe the Method of Reasoning used by our speaker. The stimulus begins with a conclusion; garbage in the neighborhood will probably not be collected until Thursday. This conclusion is followed by the author’s explanation. Monday was a public holiday, which will delay the trash collection to Thursday.
By stating the requirements of the collection system, this stimulus brings up and then applies a series of standards to determine what day trash collection will likely occur on. Knowing our answer choice will discuss the rules of the collection system we can proceed into answer choice elimination.
Answer Choice (A) This is not what we are looking for. In order for our argument to be relying on “irrelevant evidence” we would need to see that information clearly in the stimulus. There is nothing directly irrelevant or unrelated to the discussion at hand in the stimulus.
Answer Choice (B) Rather than rule out all of the alternative possibilities, our stimulus has identified the one probable solution on the basis of the rules of the trash collection service. For this reason we can eliminate answer choice B.
Correct Answer Choice (C) This is exactly what we are looking for! This is the only answer choice that correctly describes the speaker’s use of rules to a specific case.
Answer Choice (D) This is not descriptively accurate. This answer choice accuses the argument of generalizing on the basis of one such action. However, there is no particular instance used in the stimulus to draw another conclusion.
Answer Choice (E) Treating something as if it were “inevitable” means treating something as if it is without a doubt going to occur. Without this type of language in the stimulus, we can eliminate answer choice E.
This is a descriptively weakening/flaw question, and we know this because of the question stem: The reasoning is flaw because the argument...
This first sentence is a conditional: (announcement authorized by dept. head) → (important)
The next sentence denies the sufficient condition and the concludes that because of this, some announcements are not important. The flaw here is that you cannot conclude anything by denying the sufficient condition. Just because the head of the department can announce important stuff, that does not make him the only person allowed to announced important things. Once you deny the sufficient condition, the rule falls away. What this argument is doing is confusing the sufficient condition for a necessary condition: (important) → (announcement authorized by dept head). If we deny the necessary condition, then we can conclude that some announcements are not important. But the arguments stands right now, this is an invalid conclusion.
Answer Choice (A) is descriptively accurate but it’s not the flaw. Differentiating between announcements and other communications is not relevant to the argument.
Answer Choice (B) is descriptively accurate but it is not the flaw. The argument is whether these are important and that the argument too quickly denies that they’re are not important.
Answer Choice (C) is descriptively accurate, but this isn’t a flaw. The conclusion is about other announcements made by people other than the head of the department. If the head of the department doesn’t make any announcements ever, that’s fine!
Correct Answer Choice (D) is descriptively accurate and it is the flaw. This answer choices takes into account the sufficiency-necessity confusion.
Answer Choice (E) is descriptively accurate but we don’t care about opinions here.
This is a flaw question, and we know that because of the question stem: Which one of the following indicates a weakness in the position expressed above?
The author says that the United States has been used and is okay with a large defense budget used to fight against the Eastern bloc. However, the author says that Ince the threat along with the Eastern bloc is disappearing, the author concludes that it’s doubtful whether the public can be persuaded to support an adequate defense budget.
This argument may seem acceptable on surface level, but it’s important to hone in on certain modifiers and adjectives in this stimulus (as is often the case on the LSAT). In the first sentence, the author says that the defense budget is substantial. In the second, he says it’s adequate. Do those two mean the same thing? Especially with the Eastern bloc now dissolving, how do we know that an adequate budget and a substantial budget don’t mean entirely different things? This is where the argument falls short.
Answer Choice (A) is not descriptively accurate; the public isn’t being manipulated according to the argument. Instead, the argument speaks to the public being convinced of something.
Answer Choice (B) is not descriptively accurate either; there isn’t really a causal relationship being established in the argument; if there is, it’s that the eastern bloc caused the public to accept the defense budget, but that’s not what is wrong with the argument.
Answer Choice (C) is not descriptively accurate; the argument doesn’t as fact what it’s seeking to establish. If it was, this argument would feel very circular.
Answer Choice (D) is descriptively inaccurate; they do give a reason, it’s just not a very supportive premise for the conclusion reached.
Correct Answer Choice (E) is descriptively accurate and it’s a flaw. The way “substantial” and “adequate” are used isn’t clear. They could be mean different amounts of money, and the public could support an adequate budget without agreeing with a substantial budget.
This is a flaw question type, and we know this because of the question stem: Which one of the following most clearly identifies an error in the author’s reasoning?
A gas tax of 1 cent per gallon would raise revenue by 1 billion dollars. Since the tax would be 50 cents per gallon would raise the revenue by 50 billion, the author concludes that this would be a great way to deal with the federal deficit. He continues by saying this would result in lower consumption of gas, presumably because the increase in price causes people to stop buying so much of it. Additionally, it would keep them from being too dependent on foreign companies for oil, too.
There is an internal inconsistency - if something would raise revenue, how could its effect also be to lower consumption? The implication here is that if consumption is lowered, the revenue is also going down.
Answer Choice (A) is not descriptively correct; there is no irrelevant data.
Answer Choice (B) is not correct: “relies on incorrect... figures?” How would we know these figures are incorrect? This is out.
Correct Answer Choice (C) reflects the two assumptions about increased revenue and decreased consumption.
Answer Choice (D) is not correct because there is no confusion between cause and effect.
Answer Choice (E) is not correct because the author is not trying to appeal to conscience.