PrepTest 136
[lcid:3643] Prep Test 136 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S4
Logical reasoning
Question prompt
Some members have criticized
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
Strengthen with Necessary Premise Questions
Answer choices
-
AThe previous club president Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice A is not credited
Incorrect. The argument relies on the analogous situation of hiring an accountant without consulting the rest of the club, so the argument doesn't require that the previous president engaged in the exact same action as the current one. -
BAt the time the Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice B is not credited
Incorrect. Without tying the club members' expectations into what is and isn't appropriate, this answer is out of scope. -
CDr. Hines accepted the Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice C is not credited
Incorrect. The criticism is over the invitation, so Dr. Hines accepting the invitation is out of scope. -
DThe club president has Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice D is not credited
Incorrect. This undercuts the applicability of the analogy, thus weakening the argument, so it can't be a necessary assumption. -
EThe club's previous president Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice E matches the stem
Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument
Valid or Flawed:
Flawed
Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise
Stimulus Summary:
The club's president invited a speaker without consulting the other club members. Several years ago, the former president did the same thing with an accountant. Therefore, the president was okay to extend the invitation.
Answer Anticipation:
This argument relies on an analogous situation to justify the conclusion. However, it fails to state that the judgment it wants to draw in this situation—that the president acted appropriately—was the correct judgment in the analogous situation! It's relying on the former president's act of hiring an accountant without consulting the other club members as being appropriate, justifying that conclusion in this similar case.
Answer Explanation:
The argument relies on the analogous situation with the previous president to justify the conclusion that the current president acted appropriately. If the earlier president didn't act appropriately in the analogous situation, the judgment in the conclusion is wrong and the argument falls apart. This answer is necessary for the argument to work.
Key Takeaway:
When an argument uses an analogous situation to reach its conclusion, make sure the situations are set up as relevantly similar and that the analogous situation leads to the conclusion the author wants to draw. Without both of those things, the analogy will fail to justify the conclusion.
What this tests
Discussion
No threads yet—be the first to ask a question or share an approach.