Logical reasoning PrepTest 151 · Section 2 · Question 1

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Musicians seek to create beauty, not manipulate emotions. Therefore, arguing that some music should be banned because it dangerously manipulates emotions is misguided.

Answer Anticipation:
A huge move here is to be sure to rephrase that conclusion to include the reasoning Ullman is attacking. Once the argument is simplified in this way (instead of being structured as two separate arguments, one by Plato and one by Ullman), we can see that this is a shift between intention and reality. The author uses the intentions of musicians to undercut Plato's argument about the reality of music. Jumping between those two is an error in reasoning, and the correct answer will reflect that shift.

Answer Explanation:
This answer is exactly what we're looking for! It points out that the author neglected to consider that, while musicians intend to create beauty and not manipulate emotions, they may still end up doing the latter.

Key Takeaway:
Motivations and intentions are frequently brought up on the LSAT. They're different from actual outcomes, and that difference is frequently what will lead you to a correct answer.

Incorrect. Since the argument is limited to a discussion of the censorship of music, this answer about other forms of censorship is out of scope. If the conclusion were instead about giving people power to censor being a bad idea, then it would be a consideration.

Incorrect. Since the conclusion is about the specific argument of Plato being misguided, this answer is out of scope. If the conclusion were instead that society should never place restrictions on music, then this would be a potential answer.

Incorrect. Since this argument limits itself to discussing music, this answer is out of scope. This answer would be relevant in an argument stating that the potentially harmful effect of music is the most pressing issue to society.

Incorrect. The premise in Ullman's argument is that musicians intend to create beauty, not that they say they intend to create beauty. If the premise was based on self-reporting, this could be an answer, but it doesn't—it states their intentions as a fact.