Logical reasoning PrepTest 152 · Section 1 · Question 15

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Complete understanding leads to forgiveness. You can never completely understand yourself, so you can never forgive yourself. (We assume that you're trying to forgive yourself for skipping your last study session. For shame.)

Answer Anticipation:
When we simplify this argument, we can see that this falls into one of the most common flaws on the exam—illegally negating a statement (DON'T JUST NEGATE!). While complete understanding leads to forgiveness, the argument never establishes it as the only way to get forgiveness. However, the rest of the argument treats it that way.

We should look for an answer that points out there may be other things that lead to forgiveness.

Answer Explanation:
For answers that use abstract language, try to rephrase them using the language from the argument. This answer can be rephrased as: treats the failure to completely understand yourself (which brings about forgiveness) as the only way to bring about forgiveness. And that's what we were looking for.

Key Takeaway:
When an Errors in Reasoning question has these abstract answer choices that don't mention the specific ideas in the argument, it's a good idea to try to substitute in the language from the argument to make them easier to understand. Also, these abstract answers frequently describe errors in reasoning present on the exam, just not in that specific question, so it's worth spending time learning what they mean.

While this answer uses sufficient and necessary language, it's actually getting at a different flaw—a causal one. The first half of the answer talks conditional language, which is a correlation. The second half uses causal language—"results from." While jumping between correlative/conditional language and causal language is a flaw, it's not the one committed here.

This answer, similar to (B), does describe an error in reasoning that occurs on the LSAT. And this argument even includes language that is associated with this error—it starts with "It has been said." However, the conclusion starts with "If so," which let's us know the conclusion recognizes the premise might just be something people say, and not something that's true. Without that "If so," this is a correct answer.

The argument only deals with whether the goal is attainable, not whether it is desirable. This answer would be potentially correct if the argument made a judgment as to the value of this lack of self-forgiveness.

The argument is not about whether or not one should try to attain self-forgiveness; just whether it's possible to do so.