Logical reasoning PrepTest 124 · Section 3 · Question 24

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Arguments

Valid or Flawed:
Valid

Question Type:
Methods of Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Person 1 - 50 options, each soda
Person 2 - 5 options, each a different type of beverage
Person 2 is more free than Person 1
Therefore - The number of options doesn't solely define meaningful freedom. The differences between the options is also relevant.

Answer Anticipation:
The conclusion here is very general, based on a single "thought experiment" carried out by the Professor. That "thought experiment" serves as an example of that general conclusion—a situation where the number of options isn't as important as the differences between the options in defining freedom.

Using an example to illustrate a generalization is a common method of reasoning on the LSAT—so much so that there's an entire question type based around it (Illustration questions)! It's definitely something to be aware of.

Answer Explanation:
The conclusion about a relevant factor in meaningful freedom is a generalization—it applies to any situation where choices are involved. And it is based on an example—the two lists of beverage options. This answer describes the Professor's argument and is thus correct.

Key Takeaway:
Analogies and examples are distinct concepts, and it's important to know the difference. Examples fall into the category of a generalization, whereas analogies relate to similar things that are on the same level.

Incorrect. This is very much the opposite of what the argument does. There, the conclusion is the generalization about meaningful freedom, and the premise is the specific case of the beverage choices. The argument therefore draws a conclusion that's a general principle based on a particular case.

Incorrect. This answer can trip people up! It requires a strong understanding of the difference between an example and an analogy. An example falls into the category of a generalization, whereas an analogy relates two things that are at a similar level. If there were another situation about food, then the beverage and food situations could be analogous, but they would both be examples of a generalization about meaningful freedom.

Incorrect. This answer is trying to get you to select something that sounds familiar, as this describes a Part vs. Whole flaw (part to whole). However, it's unclear what the "part" and the "whole" would be here. If the "whole" is freedom, then the argument definitely doesn't discuss any "part" of it other than a single example. If it's the complete grouping of beverages, then there's nothing that's claimed to be true of them.

Incorrect. The beverage situation isn't a general principle, so this answer is incorrect.