PrepTest 107

Incorrect. Since Mr. Nance's conclusion is about whether people are telling the truth, and he doesn't accept the statements of the colleague as true (he could be the one lying), it's not a problem that he's dealing with hearsay. This answer describes a Perception vs. Reality flaw, but the argument doesn't use what people say to prove what is.

Incorrect. While calling someone a liar would be criticism, there are a couple problems with this answer. First, Nance doesn't call anyone a liar—he says that at least one person isn't telling the truth. That's an important distinction, as you can accidentally not tell the truth, but you can't accidentally lie (it requires intentionality). Second, Nance doesn't base his conclusion on an attack on Chan's person—the closest to an attack we get is in the conclusion. Rather, he uses an assumption that two statements are mutually exclusive to conclude that at least one of them must be false. That's criticizing claims, not the people making them.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Ms. Chan: "I retired from Quad Cities Corporation."
Colleague: "Ms. Chan will be on business trips and working harder than ever."

Mr. Nance: At least one of them is not telling the truth.

Answer Anticipation:
Mr. Nance accuses at least one of Ms. Chan and her colleague of lying. In order for that to be true based solely on their statements, those statements must be mutually exclusive. In other words, to conclude that at least one of them must be lying, it must be the case that both of them can't be simultaneously telling the truth.

The Colleague states that Ms. Chan is taking business trips and working harder than ever. At the very least, taking business trips would preclude someone from being retired, so if he's telling the truth, then Ms. Chan isn't retired.

Is that impossible to reconcile with Ms. Chan's statements? Not at all—she said she "retired from Quad Cities Corporation," not that she retired from all work. She may have retired from that industry but is starting up another career, or her own business. Mr. Nance treats Ms. Chan's statement that she retired to be broader than it was intended, so his argument is flawed in that it shifts the meaning of retired when analyzing the two statements. Let's find an answer reflecting that.

Answer Explanation:
Nance equivocates on the way that "retirement" is used. While taking business trips and working harder than ever certainly shows that someone isn't fully retired, Chan never claimed that she was—rather, she claimed that she retired from one particular company. In equivocating between those two uses of "retirement," Nance's argument is flawed. Ms. Chan could have retired from Quad Cities, started her own business, and is now taking business trips and working harder than ever—allowing both statements to be true.

Key Takeaway:
This is a great question for seeing how subjective statements can play into a conclusion that analyzes those statements instead of objective reality. Normally, an argument about what people said will feature a Perception vs. Reality flaw, but this one sticks to discussing the subjective statements. Talking about the truth does reflect reality, but this argument never states what is true.

Incorrect. This answer might be relevant if Nance accused at least one of the two of lying, but he instead accuses them of not telling the truth. Even if Ms. Chan's colleague was deceived, in repeating a falsehood, he would not be telling the truth.

Incorrect. This answer will almost never be correct on the LSAT. It's pretty much never a flaw to infer something, even if that thing is supported by the argument. And in this case, Chan's superior character is out of scope of the conclusion, especially since Nance leaves open who isn't telling the truth.