Logical reasoning PrepTest 152 · Section 2 · Question 2

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument/Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed/Valid

Question Type:
Point at Issue

Stimulus Summary:
A: Language changes regardless of what we do, so we shouldn't worry about bad grammar.

L: In an analogous situation, your logic would lead to us not enforcing laws since they're always changing, which would be bad.

Answer Anticipation:
Lipton's argument falls into a classic method of reasoning—a reductio ad absurdum, or a reduction to the absurd. In this method of reasoning, someone points out that an analogous argument, using the same reasoning, results in a bad (or absurd) conclusion. Here, Lipton uses that method of reasoning to disagree with Anderson's conclusion—mainly, that we should worry about bad grammar, just as we worry about the law being broken. Since Lipton's argument raises an analogous situation, there's not much other overlap between their statements, so that different conclusion will likely be correct.

Note that Lipton doesn't specifically talk about grammar—instead, she highlights a situation she views as analogous and draws a conclusion that the comparable conclusion there would be bad, thus implying she disagrees with Anderson's conclusion. This is a pretty common way the LSAT ups the difficulty in Point at Issue questions! When the second speaker's argument is clearly designed to rebut the conclusion of the first point, this implied disagreement over the conclusion is frequently the correct answer.

Answer Explanation:
This answer represents Anderson's conclusion ("we shouldn't worry about violations of grammar") that Lipton's argument is meant to rebut, so this is the point at issue.

Key Takeaway:
Two things here. First, in Point at Issue questions, the LSAT is increasingly relying on implied conclusions on the part of the second speaker, so be on the lookout for that. Second, when the second speaker's entire argument is an analogous situation, answer choices dealing with specifics of the first situation are almost always out of scope of that second argument.

Incorrect. Lipton doesn't talk specifically about language, so this answer is out of scope of her argument.

Incorrect. Neither speaker addresses the ease with which people adapt to changes, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. Lipton doesn't talk about grammar rules and how frequently they're violated, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. Lipton doesn't talk about language evolution, so this answer is out of scope of her argument.