PrepTest 117

[lcid:3567] Prep Test 117 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S4 Logical reasoning

Question prompt

Advertisement: Each of the Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: D

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Argument or Facts

Argument

Valid or Flawed

Flawed

Question Type

Errors in Reasoning Questions

Stimulus Summary

All Economic Merit Prize winners for the past 25 years are covered by the Acme retirement plan, and thus they think it’s a great plan, and so it’s probably a good plan for people with similar needs.

Answer Anticipation

This argument has an interesting structure that we should be sure to note - it features an intermediate conclusion, but one that is introduced by a premise indicator word.
Here, the second sentence kicks off with “Since,” highlighting it as a premise for a conclusion that’s coming later in the sentence. However, it also has a “thus,” making it a conclusion. And since it’s both a premise and conclusion, it must be an intermediate conclusion.
Why is this important? Because in questions that are based on flawed logic, we look for assumptions between premises and conclusions, and so we can identify a flaw in an argument between the premises and intermediate conclusion as well as between the main point and the supporting statements.
So is there a gap here between the premise and intermediate conclusion? There is, and there’s a hint to it in the intermediate conclusion. That statement is about what the economists believe - what they’ve “recognized.” However, the premise isn’t based on their beliefs, or even their actions - they’re “covered” by the Acme retirement plan. Maybe one of the items won with the Economic Merit Prize is the Acme retirement plan, and so each of the winners is covered by it despite thinking it’s terrible! In jumping from a fact to what a group thinks or believes, this argument commits a Perception vs. Reality flaw.
What about between the intermediate conclusion and the main point? If the Economic Merit Prize winners all believe it to be a good plan, is it probably a good plan for those with similar needs? With the note that the conclusion only applies to those with similar retirement needs, the conclusion is more solid than it would be in assuming all people (or, at least, most) have similar needs. Unless the winners of the Economic Merit Prize are bad at personal finance, then there isn’t a gap here.

Answer choices

  1. A
    It ignores the possibility Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited
    First off, 25 is a pretty solid streak, and it’s the most recent 25, so they’re at least relevant, if not more relevant. Second, without addressing any potential change at that 25-years-ago point, this answer doesn’t provide enough information for us to know if it highlights a flaw.
  2. B
    It fails to address Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    The conclusion is that this plan is probably good for people with similar needs, not that it’s the only plan that will meet those needs. As such, this answer is out of scope - the argument needs only show that this plan is good, not that others aren’t.
  3. C
    It appeals to the Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    We noted at the end of our Anticipation that an answer could raise an issue with the experts - namely, that someone good at economics might be bad at personal finance. However, that’s not the issue raised by this answer - and, in fact, this answer doesn’t even describe a flaw. It’s perfectly acceptable to rely on the opinion of experts to support a conclusion - it’s only a flaw when it’s shown that the experts aren’t the appropriate ones for the conclusion. Since this answer doesn’t highlight that they’re inappropriate (it calls them “supposed” experts but doesn’t give a reason to question their expertise in this area), it’s not describing a flaw, let alone a flaw present in this argument.
  4. D
    It takes for granted Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D matches the stem
    This answer highlights the flaw in the argument. If the winners of the prize didn’t select it - if, say, they received it in their prize package - then they haven’t “clearly recognized” it as a source of financial security. This argument highlights the assumption the argument makes between the objective premise and subjective intermediate conclusion, and it is therefore the correct answer.
  5. E
    It presumes, without providing Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited
    Without the note in the conclusion about it applying to those “with retirement needs similar” to the winners, this answer would be correct. That inclusion, however, invalidates this answer by limiting the scope just to those with similar needs.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion