PrepTest 129

Incorrect. The stimulus does note the opinion of a few students, but it doesn't establish what the majority of students at the talk felt about anything, so this answer doesn't reflect the stimulus.

Incorrect. The conclusion doesn't advocate tolerance as much as highlight that it's missing in universities today. Additionally, tolerance doesn't require tolerating intolerance—that would defeat the purpose.

Incorrect. The argument relies on the actions of individuals to prove its point, not an emotional appeal.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
A guest speaker gave a good speech, but two students heckled her and a few others clapped for the hecklers, so universities aren't tolerant of intellectual debate.

Answer Anticipation:
Two students? Several others? Those are relatively small groups to use to reach a conclusion about universities generally. It's possible that this handful of students are outliers, and the vast majority of students who attended the speech were respectful and interested in engaging in intellectual debate.

Whenever the stimulus brings up single-digit numbers to prove a general point, you know you're in suspect territory.

Answer Explanation:
The conclusion about universities is made based on the actions of 2 students and the response of "[s]everal" more. That's single-digits, and not nearly enough to draw a conclusion about 14+ million students (yes, we looked it up).

Key Takeaway:
Any time the LSAT brings up a single digit in the premises when drawing a general conclusion, the argument is on suspicious grounds. That's too small a sample to draw a general conclusion from without a specific note that the handful of individuals in the sample are representative of the overall group.

Incorrect. First, the stimulus does imply why they behaved this way—they disagreed with the theory advocated by the speaker. Second, when generalizing about behavior, focusing on behavior instead of rationale is a valid approach.