Logical reasoning PrepTest 156 · Section 2 · Question 11

This doesn't match the flaw we anticipated, so we can table or eliminate it without giving it much thought. Besides, Williams's argument would be better if it addressed the distinction between being confrontational and engaging students. At least then, Williams would be responding to what Thomas actually said.

This doesn't describe the flaw we identified, so we can table or eliminate it without giving it much thought. Besides, this answer choice refers to "circular reasoning." Circular reasoning occurs when the conclusion merely restates a premise. Arguments that rely on circular reasoning typically have this pattern on the LSAT: "X is true. We know this because, even when X doesn't appear to be true, X still must be true because X is always true." The Wiliams doesn't presuppose that Thomas is venting against people like York — Williams bases that conclusion on the opinion that Thomas sounds like a self-serving academic.

This isn't the flaw we anticipated, so we can table or eliminate it without giving it much thought. Besides, this answer choice doesn't make much sense. Williams says that Thomas characterizes York as being too flamboyant and confrontational. If Thomas said it, Thomas must believe it. Regardless, this conclusion is about Thomas's self-loathing and temper tantrums, so it doesn't matter whether Thomas actually endorses the argument York is too flamboyant and confrontational.

This matches the flaw we anticipated, so we can select this and give the remaining answer choices a quick glance. This describes exactly what Williams did — attack Thomas personally rather than address what Thomas actually said about York or how York actually behaves in the classroom. Even if Thomas sounds like a self-serving academic, Thomas might make a decent point about York. Williams needs to refute that point before attributing ulterior motives to Thomas.

This doesn't match the flaw we anticipated, so we can table or eliminate it without giving it much thought. Besides, Williams's argument would be better if Williams proved that York is not too confrontational. In that case, Williams would address the merits of Thomas's argument. We'd at least be more willing to accept the possibility Thomas was lashing out if we knew Thomas was tossing out untrue accusations.