Logical reasoning PrepTest 134 · Section 1 · Question 16

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
not Government by consent → not Democracy
Believing everyone is exclusively selfish implies government by consent is impossibleTherefore—Believing everyone is exclusively selfish → Believe democracy is impossible

Answer Anticipation:
The conclusion here has a red-flag keyword that we should pay attention to—"believe." Whenever the LSAT talks about what someone thinks, knows, or believes, they're getting into the subjective mindset of that individual. And that subjective mindset doesn't necessarily reflect logic, rationality, or reality.

Here, the argument concludes that someone who believes that everyone acts exclusively in their self-interest also believes that democracy is futile. Why? Because that view implies government by consent is impossible, and without government by consent, there can be no democracy.

However, again, there's no indication that just because someone believes a statement that implies a truth that they believe that truth! It's possible that someone who believes everyone acts exclusively in their own self-interest doesn't believe this means government by consent is impossible, or that without consent, democracy is impossible. Despite those things being established as true by the argument, they may not be accepted by the group whose beliefs are being explored.

In assuming that someone will believe the logical implications of their beliefs, the argument makes a jump, and the correct answer should highlight that.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the jump from believing everyone acts solely in their self-interest to believing that government by consent is impossible. While the former belief might imply the latter, there's no indication that those who hold the former belief also believe in this implication.

Key Takeaway:
Whenever an argument talks about the subjective thoughts of individuals or a group, there's a good chance that the argument is jumping between fact and belief. Just because something is true doesn't mean people believe it; just because people believe something doesn't make it true.

Incorrect. The conclusion about each social theorist who holds a belief isn't based on what social theorists who hold a belief as a group have decided, so there's no whole to part jump.

Incorrect. The conclusion here is about social theorists who hold a belief individually, not as a group, so there can't be a part to whole jump.

Incorrect. There's no attempt to discredit either a theory or a group here—just an exploration of the implications of a given belief.

Incorrect. There's no discussion of a view being false, or even premises being false—just implications of a belief.