PrepTest 127
[lcid:3605] Prep Test 127 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S2
Logical reasoning
Question prompt
This region's swimmers generally
Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right
Credited answer: E
The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.
Question Type
Errors in Reasoning Questions
Answer choices
-
Aoverlooks the possibility that Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice A is not credited
Incorrect. The argument is about the relative safety of day and night swimming, so even if some sharks hunt at night, if most of them hunt during the day, the argument still holds. -
Bbases its conclusion on Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice B is not credited
Incorrect. There's no source noted, so this argument can't rely on an unreliable one. -
Coverlooks the possibility that Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice C is not credited
Incorrect. The conclusion isn't about when people should swim, but rather when it's safer to swim. While anxiety might play into swimming safety, it isn't established as doing so, so this answer is out of scope. -
Dpresumes, without providing justification, Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice D is not credited
Incorrect. The argument does provide justification for believing that the popular opinion of when it's safe to swim is wrong—that all recent shark attacks have happened when most people think it's safer to swim. -
Efails to take into Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice E matches the stem
Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument
Valid or Flawed:
Flawed
Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning
Stimulus Summary:
People swim during the day because they fear night shark attacks, but all shark attacks have happened during the day, so it's more dangerous to swim during the day.
Answer Anticipation:
Of course all the shark attacks happen during the day—that's when you just told us everyone is swimming! If almost no one is swimming at night, then shark attacks would be significantly less likely to happen then because there are so few people in the water. This argument is akin to saying that almost all car accidents happen on roads, so it must therefore be safer to drive through houses.
Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the issue with the argument. What is relevant to the determination of safety is the rate of shark attacks—how many people are attacked compared to how many people swim. If people are almost all only swimming during the day, then the lack of shark attacks might not be a factor of safety but rather of opportunity.
Key Takeaway:
While it's a bit buried under the language here, this argument, at its heart, commits a percent and amount flaw. The number of attacks is used to justify that one thing is safer than another, but safety is inherently about the rate of accidents/danger, not the total number of accidents. That jump is a common fallacy on the LSAT, even when it's buried a bit under other language.
What this tests
Discussion
-
Explanation? 4 replies
Started by burdal
-
Why is this not B? 1 reply
Started by Tyler808
-
Timing 2 replies
Started by damon