Section Types Logical Reasoning

LSAT 152 - Section 4 - Question 11

January 17, 2019

To be considered for this year’s Gillespie Grant, applications must be received in Gillespie City by October 1. It can take up to ten days for regular mail from Greendale to reach Gillespie City. So if Mary is sending an application by regular mail from Greendale, she will be considered for the grant only if her application is mailed ten days before the due date.

Summarize Argument

The author concludes that, if she’s using regular mail from Greendale, Mary must mail her application ten days before the due date to be considered for the grant. He supports this with the following premises:

(1) Applications must arrive in Gillespie City by October 1 to be considered.

(2) Regular mail from Greendale can take up to ten days to reach Gillespie City.

Identify and Describe Flaw

The author concludes that Mary must mail her application ten days before the due date to be considered for the grant. But his premises state that regular mail from Greendale can take up to ten days to reach Gillespie City. So he overlooks the possibility that some mail might take less than ten days.

What if Mary’s application only takes five days to arrive? In that case, he can’t conclude that she’ll only be considered if she mails it ten days before the due date.

A

does not establish that Mary is applying for the Gillespie Grant or mailing anything from Greendale

It’s true that the author never establishes this, but he doesn’t need to. He’s only addressing what would happen if Mary sends in an application from Greendale. Whether she actually does apply is irrelevant.

B

does not determine how long it takes express mail to reach Gillespie City from Greendale

It doesn’t matter how long it takes express mail to reach Gillespie City from Greendale. The author is only addressing what would happen if Mary sends her application by regular mail from Greendale.

C

does not consider the minimum amount of time it takes regular mail from Greendale to reach Gillespie City

What if the minimum amount of time it takes regular mail from Greendale to reach Gillespie City is five days? In that case, Mary might not need to send in her application ten days before the due date in order to be considered.

D

presumes, without providing justification, that if Mary’s application is received in Gillespie City by October 1, she will satisfy all of the other requirements of the Gillespie Grant application

The author doesn’t assume that Mary will satisfy all the requirements if her application is received on time. She might mail her application on time and still not be considered for the grant. The author just argues that if she is considered, she must mail her application on time.

E

overlooks the possibility that Mary cannot be certain that her application will arrive in Gillespie City unless she sends it by express mail

The author only addresses Mary sending her application by regular mail; express mail is irrelevant. Also, even if she can’t be sure that it will arrive by regular mail, this doesn't impact the conclusion that if it is considered, she must send it ten days before the due date.

19 comments

LSAT 86 - Section 1 - Question 24

January 17, 2019

1 comment

LSAT 152 - Section 1 - Question 24

January 17, 2019

Andy Warhol’s Brillo Boxes is a stack of boxes that are visually indistinguishable from the product packaging of an actual brand of scouring pads. Warhol’s Brillo Boxes is considered a work of art, while an identical stack of ordinary boxes would not be considered a work of art. Therefore, it is not true that appearance alone entirely determines whether or not something is considered a work of art.

Summarize Argument

The author concludes that appearance alone does not entirely determine whether or not something is considered a work of art. This is supported by the example of Warhol’s Brillo Boxes. This artwork is visually indistinguishable from product packaging, but Brillo Boxes is considered a work of art, while the product packaging would not be considered a work of art.

Describe Method of Reasoning

The author supports a conclusion using an example.

A

highlighting the differences between things that are believed to have a certain property and things that actually have that property

The author doesn’t present something that’s believed to be art vs. something that’s actually art. Brillo Boxes are considered art. Product packaging isn’t considered art. Neither actually “is” art — we’re told what people consider or don’t consider to be art.

B

demonstrating that an opposing argument relies on an ambiguity

There is no opposing argument. An argument requires a premise and a conclusion. Although the author counters the view that appearance alone determines whether something’s considered art, that view isn’t an argument.

C

suggesting that two things that are indistinguishable from each other must be the same type of thing

The author doesn’t say that Brillo Boxes and the product packaging are the same type of thing. They are visually indistinguishable, but that doesn’t mean they’re both art or that they’re both not art. The point is whether something’s considered art involves more than appearance.

D

questioning the assumptions underlying a particular theory

If you consider “appearance alone determines whether something’s considered art” to be a theory, (D) is wrong because the author doesn’t question the assumptions underlying this. The author simply shows that it is false by pointing to a counterexample.

E

showing that something that would be impossible if a particular thesis were correct is actually true

Something that would be impossible (only Brillo Boxes is considered art even though identical packaging looks the same) if a particular thesis were correct (appearance alone determines whether something’s considered art) is actually true (only Brillo Boxes is considered art).

86 comments

LSAT 86 - Section 1 - Question 21

January 16, 2019

53 comments

LSAT 152 - Section 1 - Question 21

January 16, 2019

Farmer: Farming with artificial fertilizers, though more damaging to the environment than organic farming, allows more food to be grown on the same amount of land. If all farmers were to practice organic farming, they would be unable to produce enough food for Earth’s growing population. Hence, if enough food is to be produced, the currently popular practice of organic farming must not spread any further.

Summarize Argument

The author concludes that if enough food is to be produced, the practice or organic farming cannot spread any further. This is based on the fact that if all farmers were to practice organic farming, they wouldn’t be able to produce enough food for Earth’s population.

Identify and Describe Flaw

The premise establishes that to make enough food, we can’t have “all farmers” doing organic farming. But the author mistakenly interprets that to mean we can’t have any increase in organic farming. The author overlooks the possibility that having an increase in organic farming can still allow us to feed Earth’s population, as long as that increase doesn’t extend to “all farmers.”

A

It takes for granted that farming with artificial fertilizers is only slightly more damaging to the environment than organic farming is.

The author acknowledges that artificial fertilizer-based farming is “more damaging” than organic farming. There’s no indication the author thinks this damage is only slight as opposed to significant.

B

It overlooks the possibility that even if the practice of organic farming continues to spread, many farmers will choose not to adopt it.

This possibility, if true, shows that it’s possible organic farming can spread without it extending to “all farmers.” And if it doesn’t extend to “all farmers,” then we have no reason to think we’d be in a position where it’s impossible to feed the world.

C

It fails to consider the possibility that, at some points in human history, enough food was produced to feed Earth’s population without the use of artificial fertilizers.

The premise establishes that in order to feed the world, we can’t have “all farmers” doing organic farming. What farming was like in the past and how much food such farming allowed has no bearing on what the premise says is currently required.

D

It overlooks the possibility that a consequence that would surely follow if all farmers adopted the practice of organic farming would still ensue even if not all of them did.

This isn’t a possibility overlooked by the author; it’s closer to something the author assumes. The author thinks that we’ll face inability to feed people if organic farming spreads even a little bit more. Since this possibility doesn’t hurt the argument, it’s not the flaw.

E

It takes for granted that damage to the environment due to the continued use of artificial fertilizers would not be detrimental to human health.

The author’s argument doesn’t assume anything about damage to human health. The issue is whether a further spread of organic farming would lead to inability to produce enough food. How fertilizers affect health doesn’t bear on this issue.

60 comments

LSAT 86 - Section 1 - Question 20

January 16, 2019

9 comments

LSAT 152 - Section 1 - Question 20

January 16, 2019

12 comments

LSAT 86 - Section 1 - Question 15

January 16, 2019

1 comment

LSAT 152 - Section 1 - Question 15

January 16, 2019

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.

24 comments

LSAT 86 - Section 1 - Question 14

January 16, 2019

43 comments