Logical reasoning PrepTest 148 · Section 3 · Question 5

Incorrect. There's no indication that Jenkins is biased in any way, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. The premise is causal ("clearly produced"), so there's no jump from correlation to causation.

Incorrect. It's unclear what the part and whole would be here. If anything, trying to make this work would have you say that it caused antisocial behavior among many people, which isn't everyone. But the argument doesn't state or rely on everyone who sees it engaging in antisocial behavior, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. If we accept Jenkins' premise that it's in the director's interest to prevent antisocial behavior and that she's expressed that interest, then the author's argument relies on someone acting contrary to their interest.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Jenkins: Firepower wasn't meant to cause antisocial behavior.

Argument: Firepower did cause antisocial behavior, so it must have been meant to cause that behavior.

Answer Anticipation:
The flaw here is a lot easier to see if we rephrase the author's conclusion away from referencing Jenkins' argument to directly stating what the author intends to prove. Here, since Jenkins' conclusion is that Firepower wasn't meant to cause this behavior, rejecting that means the conclusion of the main argument is that it was meant to cause this behavior.

With the conclusion rephrased, we can see that this falls into a common error in reasoning from the LSAT. Whenever the motives behind an action ("intended to") are confused with the outcomes of that action, there's an error in reasoning. Just because Firepower led to antisocial behavior doesn't guarantee it was meant to—that could have been an unintended consequence.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the difference between motives and outcomes. Just because an action had a given outcome doesn't mean that the person performing that action meant the outcome to happen—it could have been unexpected, and it could even have been the opposite of the desired outcome.

Key Takeaway:
The LSAT will frequently present questions that feature actions, goals/motives, and outcomes. Be sure that you can distinguish between each, and that you don't treat one as establishing another!