Logical reasoning PrepTest 113 · Section 2 · Question 16

Incorrect. This answer describes a Circular Reasoning flaw, but there's an independent reason given for believing the conclusion (cheap printed books being replaced by electronic media), so it's not circular.

Incorrect. There's no experts mentioned in the argument. And if you tried to apply this to the Media Consultant herself, you can't say that the author is inappropriately relying on herself—that's just not a flaw on the LSAT, as we treat her premises as true.

Incorrect. The premise is that books are being taken over by electronic media, not that it could be.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Traditional school - Developed because of inexpensive printed books
Books are being taken over by electronic media
Therefore - Traditional schools will disappear

Answer Anticipation:
There's a lot of extra language in this argument, so it's important to cut it down as much as possible to the core.

It starts with a prediction—electronic media will end traditional schools. It then defines a traditional school before establishing what led to the schools developing—inexpensive printed books. But the role of books is being taken over by that electronic media, and so traditional schools will disappear.

First, it's important to note that this isn't a circular argument, though we'll certainly get an answer stating that. While the first and last line are very similar, they are a little different in that the first line brings what will cause traditional schools to disappear, and the last line just states that they will disappear. Also, there's a reason given for it—the printed books that led to the development of schools are being replaced by electronic media. If there's a premise justifying the conclusion that's independent of that conclusion, the argument isn't circular.

So what is the issue here? We know that electronic media is taking over the role of books. So, in short, the inexpensive printed books are disappearing (being replaced by eBooks), and so the schools will disappear. If something going away results in something else disappearing, that's treating the first thing as necessary for the second. However, the stimulus never established that it's necessary—just that it was key to the development of the traditional school. Let's find and answer pointing out that the argument assumes the inexpensive printed books are necessary for the traditional school to stick around without ever establishing that to be true.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the assumption in the argument. The cheap printed books allowed traditional schools to arise, but that doesn't mean that the schools can't survive without the books—that the books are necessary for the schools' continued survival.

Key Takeaway:
The writers of the LSAT are very good at putting in information that leads you down the wrong path. Here, there was a repeated conclusion (more or less) that would have made it easy to think there was a Circular Reasoning flaw going on here. However, there was an independent premise to support the conclusion, so the argument couldn't be circular.

Incorrect. The argument never discusses the value of traditional schools, just their survival. Valuable things can fail to survive; non-valuable things can keep on keeping on.