Logical reasoning PrepTest 103 · Section 2 · Question 25

Incorrect. This answer is way too strong based on Hector's argument. He's willing to commit to following what the public's opinion is here, but that's a far cry from relying on the public's opinion controlling in all situations.

Incorrect. Hector's conclusion is predicated on it being correct ("if public opinion . . . is what you say"), so it's not relying on it being incorrect.

Incorrect. Hector's willing to concede that the sculpture may have artistic merit ("You may be right . . . "), so his argument doesn't require making a determination that the sculpture might not have such merit.

Incorrect. Again, Hector concedes that the work might have artistic merit. That merit isn't really important to his argument, which is about public opinion and benefit.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument/Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed/Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Background - A sculpture was commissioned for a town plaza

M: Our townsfolk don't know art, so their opinion that it's bad doesn't mean it lacks artistic merit, so it doesn't justify removing it.

H: Art for a public space should benefit the public, and their opinion is the only way to tell what they think is beneficial, so if people don't like it, let's remove it.

Answer Anticipation:
For this second question using the same stimulus, we're told to focus on Hector's argument. Let's ignore what Monica said unless it is related to a gap in Hector's argument, focusing our work.

All Strengthen with Necessary Premise questions have arguments that are flawed, and so we should be on the lookout for language suggesting specific flaws. While there are some flaws that show up more commonly in this question type, we should always be hunting for language that brings up other flaws.

Here, we have a word that does tend to show up related to a specific flaw—"feels." Hector's argument discusses what the public believes is to their benefit, not what is actually to its benefit. His principle that allows his conclusion to be drawn is about actual benefit—"art . . . for a public space ought to benefit the public." Since he uses what the public thinks is to its benefit to justify a conclusion based on what is actually to their benefit, he's committing a Perception vs. Reality flaw.

The correct answer, then, should connect the perception to the reality—if the public believes something isn't to their benefit (such as the sculpture), then it isn't.

Answer Explanation:
This answer bridges the Perception vs. Reality flaw in Hector's argument. Hector establishes public benefit as determining art in public spaces, and he then says that popular opinion determines whether the public feels something is to their benefit. This answer connects those concepts. If the public feeling something isn't to their benefit doesn't guarantee the sculpture isn't actually to their benefit, then his argument breaks down, making this a necessary premise and correct.

Key Takeaway:
There are a set of question types on the LSAT that all deal with invalid arguments. While there are some errors in reasoning that are more commonly associated with each question type, any error in reasoning* can appear in any of these question types. Use the associations to guide your work, but always be open to other flaws showing up.

*The exception here is the Circular Reasoning flaw. Since these arguments have a premise and conclusion that are the same thing, they're technically valid. The reason they're flawed is because they don't say anything meaningful! But that also means that there isn't an assumption that can be addressed, and so they can't be strengthened/weakened/etc . . .