Section Types Logical Reasoning

LSAT 151 - Section 2 - Question 02

November 10, 2018

LSAT 85 - Section 2 - Question 01

November 10, 2018

LSAT 151 - Section 2 - Question 01

November 10, 2018

Ullman: Plato argued that because of the harmful ways in which music can manipulate the emotions, societies need to put restrictions on the music their citizens hear. However, because musicians seek not to manipulate the emotions but to create beauty, this argument is misguided.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position

Ullman concludes that Plato’s argument that music should be restricted because it can manipulate the emotions is misguided. He supports this by saying that musicians seek to create beauty, not to manipulate the emotions.

Identify and Describe Flaw

Ullman fails to consider the possibility that music can still manipulate the emotions, even though musicians simply seek to create beauty. In other words, just because musicians don’t intend to manipulate the emotions, doesn't mean that their music doesn’t do so. If it does manipulate the emotions, Plato’s argument might not be misguided.

A

what musicians intend their music to do and what it actually does are different

Ullman implicitly assumes that music doesn’t manipulate the emotions, simply because musicians do not intend to manipulate the emotions. He overlooks the possibility that musicians’ intentions for their music might be different from the actual effects of their music.

B

those with the power to censor music would not censor other forms of expression

Ullman doesn’t say anything about who has the power to censor music. Regardless, whether these people would censor other forms of expression is irrelevant. Ullman is only addressing the restriction of music.

C

there are other, more convincing arguments for allowing the censorship of music

This is true, but it doesn't matter because Ullman is only addressing Plato’s argument for allowing the censorship of music. He concludes that Plato’s argument is misguided; whether other arguments are more convincing is irrelevant.

D

other forms of art have more potential to be harmful to society than music has

Both Plato and Ullman are only addressing whether music manipulates the emotions and should be restricted. Whether other forms of art are more harmful than music is irrelevant.

E

artists who are trying to manipulate people’s emotions to control them are not likely to admit it

Even if some artists are trying to manipulate people’s emotions and don’t admit it, this wouldn’t affect Ullman’s argument. We have to accept his premise that “musicians seek not to manipulate the emotions but to create beauty.”

4 comments

LSAT 84 - Section 2 - Question 02

August 10, 2018

18 comments

LSAT 150 - Section 2 - Question 02

August 10, 2018

22 comments

LSAT 84 - Section 3 - Question 25

August 10, 2018

5 comments

LSAT 150 - Section 3 - Question 25

August 10, 2018

9 comments

LSAT 84 - Section 3 - Question 24

August 10, 2018

Flaw/Descriptive Weakening

Let's say that someone's very obese. That's bad for their overall health. There are now a number of proposals on the table to help them lose weight. Consider proposal 1 which I won't reveal yet but trust me, it definitely helps them lose weight. Are you willing to accept that therefore it'll be good for their overall health?

Well you shouldn't. Because you know what proposal 1 is? Crystal meth. It'll help with the obesity by suppressing appetite and speeding up metabolism. But it'll also increase chances of you dead. So no. It's not gonna be good for overall health.

There's the analogy for the politician's argument. The proposal 1 is the regulation proposals. The obesity is the large trade deficit. The overall health is the overall economy.

Just because the proposed regulations would cut down the trade deficit doesn't mean that it would be good for the overall economy. The regulations could have other effects that would be bad for the overall economy. That's what (D) says.

(E) is saying that this argument commits a whole to part flaw. The conclusion descriptor is true enough. It does conclude that "every/each regulation will help the economy" but no where did it say that the entire set of regulations as a whole would help the economy. Who's even thinking about enacting the entire set of regulations? I don't know.

(B) is just descriptively inaccurate. The politician does not assume (take for granted) that reducing the trade deficit is the only way of improving the economy, just that it's one way. If you said "excuse me, but here's some Martian technology from 100 years in the future, that'll help boost your economy" the politician will just be like "cool, thanks buddy!"

25 comments

LSAT 150 - Section 3 - Question 24

August 10, 2018

Politician: Every regulation currently being proposed by the Committee for Overseas Trade will reduce the trade deficit. Our country’s trade deficit is so large that it weakens the economy. Therefore, each of the proposed regulations would help the economy.

Summarize Argument

The author concludes that each (every single one) of the proposed regulations would help the economy. This is based on the following:

Every proposed regulation will reduce the trade deficit.

The trade deficit is so large that it weakens the economy.

Identify and Describe Flaw

The author assumes that the proposed regulations won’t have any effects that could harm the economy that outweigh the benefit to the economy from reducing the trade deficit. This overlooks the possibility that the net effect of the regulations could harm the economy or end up not changing the economy.

A

takes for granted that the trade deficit will increase in size if no action is taken to reduce it

The author points out that the deficit is currently large enough to weaken the economy. But the author doesn’t assume that the deficit will grow if we don’t do anything to reduce it. The reasoning is based purely on the current deficit.

B

takes for granted that the only means of strengthening the economy is reducing the trade deficit

The author does not assume that we must reduce the trade deficit to strengthen the economy. There can be other ways to help the economy; the author is simply asserting that the proposed regulations would have the effect of helping the economy.

C

merely appeals to the authority of the committee without evaluating any reasons for the proposed regulations

The author does not “merely” appeal to the authority of the committee. The author does not say that we should pass the regulations because the committee recommends them. Rather, the author points to the effect the regulations have on the trade deficit.

D

fails to consider the possibility that one effect of a regulation will be offset by other effects

This possibility points out that even if a regulation reduces the trade deficit, it may have other effects that end up hurting the economy (ex. they might also enact tariffs or increase taxes, etc.). The net effect of a regulation might not end up helping the economy.

E

concludes that every regulation in a set will have the same effects as a set of regulations as a whole

(E) describes a whole-to-part fallacy. But the argument gives us a premise about “every regulation” — this is about each regulation. And the conclusion is also about each regulation. So the argument doesn’t start with a statement about the whole.

Flaw/Descriptive Weakening

Let's say that someone's very obese. That's bad for their overall health. There are now a number of proposals on the table to help them lose weight. Consider proposal 1 which I won't reveal yet but trust me, it definitely helps them lose weight. Are you willing to accept that therefore it'll be good for their overall health?

Well you shouldn't. Because you know what proposal 1 is? Crystal meth. It'll help with the obesity by suppressing appetite and speeding up metabolism. But it'll also increase chances of you dead. So no. It's not gonna be good for overall health.

There's the analogy for the politician's argument. The proposal 1 is the regulation proposals. The obesity is the large trade deficit. The overall health is the overall economy.

Just because the proposed regulations would cut down the trade deficit doesn't mean that it would be good for the overall economy. The regulations could have other effects that would be bad for the overall economy. That's what (D) says.

(E) is saying that this argument commits a whole to part flaw. The conclusion descriptor is true enough. It does conclude that "every/each regulation will help the economy" but no where did it say that the entire set of regulations as a whole would help the economy. Who's even thinking about enacting the entire set of regulations? I don't know.

(B) is just descriptively inaccurate. The politician does not assume (take for granted) that reducing the trade deficit is the only way of improving the economy, just that it's one way. If you said "excuse me, but here's some Martian technology from 100 years in the future, that'll help boost your economy" the politician will just be like "cool, thanks buddy!"

31 comments

LSAT 84 - Section 3 - Question 23

August 10, 2018

3 comments