Logical reasoning PrepTest 142 · Section 2 · Question 1

Incorrect. Jamal acknowledges that she has a legal right to sell the business "whenever [Mary] wish[es]," so even if he means she doesn't have a right to sell the business now, that'd still be contradictory.

Incorrect. Mary's argument is that Jamal's statements are contradictory and absurd. Whether her employees have rights wouldn't change Jamal's contradiction. Additionally, this answer doesn't establish if these rights would impact her ability to sell—maybe they're just about the notice she has to give them, or how long she has to provide their last paycheck.

Incorrect. Mary doesn't actually argue that she does have a right to sell her business—just that Jamal's statements contradict each other. As such, she doesn't need to provide any evidence that she has a right to sell the business since she's not arguing that she does.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
M: You say I have a legal right to sell my business, but selling it will hurt my employees so I have no right to sell it. You contradict yourself.

Answer Anticipation:
Mary accuses Jamal of contradicting himself in his criticism of her. That contradiction? He says she has a legal right to sell the business, but she has no right to sell it since doing so will hurt her employees. Since we're pointing out a flaw in Mary's argument, we should think about how it could be the case that Jamal isn't contradicting himself.

Whenever an argument uses the same term twice—here, "right"—you should make sure that there's no shift in meaning. The first time Mary/Jamal discuss a right to sell the business, it's a legal right. However, the second time, it has more to do with what Mary owes to her employees. She obviously doesn't legally owe them employment, or to not sell her business, so Jamal must be talking about a different kind of right. However, in treating his two statements as contradicting each other and thus being absurd, Mary isn't allowing for the word to be used in two different senses. Therefore, her argument is flawed because it doesn't address the actual substance of Jamal's argument—just a misinterpreted version of it.

Answer Explanation:
Jamal switches from discussing a legal right to something more akin to a moral right—based on what she owes to her employees in preventing them from suffering. Since he's using the same word but in two different senses, his statements don't necessarily contradict each other, and thus Mary's accusation that he does are flawed.

Key Takeaway:
When someone's argument uses the same word twice, check to see if it shifts in meaning. While normally on the LSAT using the same word twice with a shifted meaning is a flaw, it's also a flaw to fail to address the real point made by the argument you're rebutting.

Incorrect. Mary doesn't call Jamal absurd—she calls his claims, taken together, absurd. So she's attacking his argument, not his character, and this ad hominem answer is incorrect.