PrepTest 111

[lcid:3542] Prep Test 111 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S3 Logical reasoning

Question prompt

Raymond Burr played the 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.

Argument or Facts

Argument

Valid or Flawed

Flawed

Question Type

Errors in Reasoning Questions

Stimulus Summary

Burr played a lawyer on TV, then died
Prominent lawyer - “He wasn’t a lawyer, but we feel like he was.”
Therefore - TV is making some lawyers unable to tell fact from fiction

Answer Anticipation

The conclusion of this argument is that some lawyers can’t tell reality from television. This is based on a single lawyer responding to the death of an actor who played a lawyer on TV.
First, a flaw that isn’t present here - a Sampling flaw or bad generalization. The conclusion limits itself to discussing “some legal professionals” - not all legal professionals, or even most. A single example could back up that conclusion.
So the flaw must be in the way the author is interpreting the lawyer’s statement. And there, we see that the lawyer did acknowledge that Burr wasn’t a lawyer right up front! In ignoring the introductory clause here, the argument is flawed, so let’s find an answer reflecting that.

Answer choices

  1. A
    takes the views of Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited
    As we noted, the conclusion is about “some” lawyers, not all lawyers, so this answer is incorrect.
  2. B
    criticizes the lawyer rather Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    The author uses what the lawyer said to analyze his beliefs. That’s a fair way to criticize someone, so there’s no Attacking the Person flaw here. (In fact, attacking the ability of the lawyer to tell fiction from fact is the point of the argument!)
  3. C
    presumes that the lawyer Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    The lawyer doesn’t attempt to evaluate the performance of the actor outside of the authenticity of how he played a lawyer, which a lawyer would be in a position to judge. Even then, this isn’t an assumption of the argument.
  4. D
    focuses on a famous Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    The argument focuses on one example to prove a limited conclusion about some legal professionals, so there’s no flaw in ignoring other actors who played lawyers.
  5. E
    ignores the part of Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E matches the stem
    This answer highlights that the argument skips over the opening clause of the lawyer’s argument. The conclusion uses this one lawyer to show that some legal professionals can’t tell reality from fiction, yet the lawyer starts her statement by recognizing that Burr wasn’t really a lawyer. In ignoring a relevant portion of the opposing point, this argument is flawed.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion