PrepTest 103

[lcid:3510] Prep Test 103 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S3 Logical reasoning

Question prompt

Over the past 20 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

Lots of percentages about ski injuries, so there can’t be a decrease in the number of injuries.

Answer Anticipation

This is an unbelievably numbers-dense stimulus that, if you know your common Errors in Reasoning, you can skim over and still find the correct answer.
Right off the bat, we start to get information about percentages. There’s been a percentage drop in injuries, and some specific changes in the percentage of subsets of injuries. However, from this, the argument concludes that there hasn’t been a decrease in the “number” of injuries in each category.
Since this argument is jumping from premises about percentages to a conclusion about numbers, we have a Percent vs. Amount flaw. If we want to get a bit more specific with our anticipation (we do), then we should cut through the numbers to see which stat the conclusion is related to.
There, it says that there are some categories of injuries that haven’t decreased. What percentage went up? The percentage of knee injuries. So let’s find an answer stating that the argument is flawed because it treats an increase in the percentage of knee injuries as if it guarantees an increase in the number of knee injuries.

Answer choices

  1. A
    It fails to allow Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited
    To prove that not all categories have seen a decrease in injuries, the argument needs to raise only a single example. As such, there’s no need to discuss other categories of injuries if it successfully shows that knee injuries have gone up. And before you start to think about how the total amount and percentages and math work to see if maybe there’s something to this answer, stop! There will be no question on the LSAT that requires that level of math.

  2. B
    It infers disparate effects Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    A single cause can have disparate effects, so this answer doesn’t even describe a cause. For instance, ice cream causes us to be happy and it causes ice cream headaches.

  3. C
    It ignores the possibility Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    The conclusion is that some categories of injury have increased over the past 20 years. There being more skiers would only serve to support that conclusion, as with more skiers, even a decline in percentages of injuries could result in an increased number of injuries. As such, this isn’t something the argument ignores.

  4. D
    It assumes that an Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D matches the stem
    This answer describes a Percent vs. Amount flaw, so it’s the correct answer. The argument uses the increase in percentage of knee injuries (from 11% to 16%) as if it rules out a decrease in knee injuries to reach the conclusion that there’s at least one category of injuries where the total amount went up.

  5. E
    It proceeds as though Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited
    The argument doesn’t proceed as if there was a decrease in injuries in each category, let alone that that total could be greater than the decrease overall.

What this tests

Discussion

No threads yet—be the first to ask a question or share an approach.

View all discussions Start a discussion