PrepTest 102

[lcid:3506] Prep Test 102 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S3 Logical reasoning

Question prompt

Director of Ace Manufacturing Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: A

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

Management consultant: You should find what employees are good at and what they want to do to fully exploit their labor. Director: We’re against exploiting our workers, so taking that advice would violate our policies.

Answer Anticipation

While this argument wasn’t presented as having two speakers, we broke it down that way to make it easier to analyze. In doing so, we can see that - as with most two-speaker arguments - the author rebuts the initial viewpoint. When that happens, a good place to start when looking for a flaw in the rebuttal is to see whether it addresses the opposing point. And here, there’s a specific reason to believe that it doesn’t - it uses a key term from the first argument. Here, the Director rebuts what the Consultant has to say by focusing on the word “exploit.” When that happens, check to see if they’re using the term in the same sense. Here, they’re not. The Consultant is using it to mean using the resources, whereas the Director is using it to mean treating someone unfairly to get the most out of them. Since she uses a key term in a different sense, we have an Ambiguous Word Usage flaw.

Answer choices

  1. A
    ailing to distinguish two Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A matches the stem
    This answer reflects the Ambiguous Word Usage flaw. The Director fails to distinguish between the definition of “exploit” that the Consultant is focused on and the one that reflects the company’s policy.
  2. B
    attempting to defend an Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    The Director is arguing against an action (implementing the Consultant’s proposal), not defending it.
  3. C
    defining a term by Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    This answer does address some type of word usage flaw. However, the Director doesn’t define a term, but rather relies on it. There’s a difference - we’d need to see the Director actually laying out a definition for this answer to be correct.
  4. D
    drawing a conclusion that Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    This answer describes a Circular Reasoning flaw, but the Director’s reason for rejecting the Consultant’s proposal isn’t just that it should be rejected.
  5. E
    calling something by a Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited
    If anything, the Director is relying on a more offensive definition of a key term, not using a less offensive term than the normal term used to describe something.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion