Logical reasoning PrepTest 114 · Section 2 · Question 5

Incorrect. First, there's no evidence that the same is or isn't true of the laws of logic, so we don't know if this brings up a similarity or difference between the situations. Second, even if our conception of these laws undergoes constant change, the Logician doesn't state that the physicist regularly breaks this conception, but rather breaks the laws themselves, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. The difficulty of mastery doesn't speak to whether the laws learned in obtaining that mastery are breakable. This answer is out of scope.47770,Incorrect. First the laws of physics can't be violated. Second even ignoring that the Logician doesn't rely on the laws of logic and physics being inviolable but rather that a master wouldn't violate them.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
L: I'm a master of logic, so saying that I say illogical things is like saying a physicist breaks the laws of physics.

Answer Anticipation:
We're sure this Logician is fun at parties.

There's a key phrase here that tells us both the method of argumentation and the likely flaw—"would be like." That phrase is comparing the logician to another person—a physicist. It'd be ridiculous to claim that a physicist breaks the laws of physics and thus—argues the Logician—it would be ridiculous to claim that he would break the laws of logic.

However there's a key difference there—the laws of logic are easily broken as is witnessed by the fact that the LSAT exists! The laws of physics not so much. This is a key difference between the two situations that are being compared in the stimulus and so the correct answer will likely highlight this comparison flaw.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights that the author treats the laws of physics and the laws of logic as if they're similar in the violability and that a master of each wouldn't violate those laws. However physical laws can't be violated whereas it often seems as if people can't follow the laws of logic!

Key Takeaway:
Arguments that rely on similarities are assuming that the two cases are similar across all relevant criteria but they rarely establish that.

Incorrect. The argument doesn't contradict its premise. It assumes two cases are similar when they're not, but it doesn't contradict that similarity.