Logical reasoning PrepTest 157 · Section 3 · Question 17

No, this answer choice makes a factually untrue statement. The anarchist does attempt to explain why anarchy is a desirable alternative to totalitarianism. The anarchist says that "government control of all facets of human life destroys the spirit, making life miserable." That's definitely a reason why anarchy is a better alternative. The problem with the anarchist's argument is that the anarchist doesn't compare the problems with totalitarianism with the problems of anarchy, not that the anarchist didn't offer any reasons why anarchy might be better.

Again, this answer choice makes a factually untrue statement. The anarchist never says that people "should" tolerate totalitarian governments. The anarchist says people can tolerate such governments (or, alternatively, fight for anarchy), but the anarchist never says that people should tolerate totalitarianism.

This answer choice makes another factually untrue statement. The anarchist doesn't infer the claim that totalitarianism is objectionable from the premise that people should fight for anarchy. This gets the direction of support backward. The anarchist establishes that totalitarianism is objectionable as a premise. From that premise, the anarchist infers the claim that people should fight for anarchy.

This is another factually untrue statement. The anarchist offers evidence that totalitarianism destroys the spirit and makes life miserable. The anarchist says that "history shows that" totalitarianism leads to these consequences. That's nebulous evidence, for sure, but evidence nonetheless.

Besides, even if the anarchist didn't say, "history shows that," that would be OK. The anarchist establishes that totalitarianism destroys the spirit and makes life miserable as a premise. On Errors in Reasoning questions, we have to accept premises as true.

OK, this wasn't what we anticipated. And, sure, the anarchist does this. And, after having good reason to eliminate the remaining answer choices, we have to reluctantly select this one.

But we're just going to say it: if this is the correct answer, this is a poorly written question. The anarchist indeed establishes anarchy and totalitarianism as the only available political alternatives. However, the anarchist does this as a premise. On Errors in Reasoning questions, we're supposed to accept the premises as true. We're supposed to analyze why those premises aren't enough to prove that the conclusion or a premise/conclusion is true. Every other Errors in Reasoning question plays by this rule (save one other poorly written question from an early LSAT), so we're not sure why this question doesn't follow this well-established convention. If the anarchist supported the claim that "People can either fight for anarchy or they can tolerate totalitarian government control" with another premise, (E) would be an unproblematic answer. But since that claim is clearly just a premise, this answer choice doesn't describe a flaw in the argument's reasoning.

So, the moral of the story is that the people who make the LSAT are human, and sometimes they make mistakes. This question is one of those mistakes. It doesn't surprise us that this question was released as the "experimental" section of a Prep Test. We don't think this question would show up on a real section that counted toward your final score.

More than anything, don't get the wrong idea from this question. Trying to look for answer choices that say "maybe the premise isn't true" will be a waste of time on other Errors in Reasoning questions. If you got this question correct, that's great. That means you understand how to eliminate answer choices that misdescribe the argument on an Errors in Reasoning question. That's a vital skill. But if you got this question wrong because you thought (E) argues with a premise, don't sweat it. That's the right instinct to have on Errors in Reasoning questions.