PrepTest 102

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

Question prompt

Herbalist: Many of my Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: C

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

Herbalist: My juices help physical coordination Doctors: The ingredients are harmful! Herbalist: They just want to be the only ones providing medicine, so there’s no reason not to try my juice.

Answer Anticipation

This question has two viewpoints, and there’s a bit of a back-and-forth, so we broke that progression down in our Summary. With that noted, let’s start with the Herbalist’s main point - there’s no reason not to try his herbed juice. Well, was there any suggestion that there was a reason to avoid it? Yep - the doctors claim that the herbs are potentially harmful. So how does the Herbalist rebut this claim? By stating that the doctors have an interest in maintaining a monopoly on medical therapies. So the Herbalist calls the motive of the Doctors’ into question in order to undermine their conclusion. That’s an Attacking the Person flaw, and so we should look for that in the answer choices. However, there’s another flaw here that would be easy to miss! It doesn’t end up mattering because the Attacking the Person flaw ends up being the correct answer, but it could just as easily have been the other flaw. Here, let’s suppose for a second that the Herbalist’s attack does successfully show that the Doctors’ criticism is invalid. That would mean that she’s shown one reason to avoid her juices doesn’t apply. There could be others, however! This is a variation on the Absence of Evidence flaw - when showing a flaw in an argument is treated as showing that the conclusion is false instead of just unproven.

Answer choices

  1. A
    attempts to force acceptance Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited
    The Herbalist doesn’t try to scare people into drinking his juice - instead, he focuses on the group saying that his juice should be avoided. This answer would be correct if he said something along the lines of, “Is it really worth the risk that you’ll die from an accident due to a lack of coordination?”
  2. B
    bases a conclusion on Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    For inconsistent claims to be a flaw, they have to be a part of the same viewpoint’s argument. Here, any inconsistent claims are split up between the Doctors and the Herbalist, so this flaw doesn’t apply.
  3. C
    rejects a claim by Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C matches the stem
    The Herbalist rejects the Doctors’ criticism by highlighting their motives instead of analyzing their argument, so this Attacking the Person flaw answer is correct.
  4. D
    relies on evidence presented Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    This answer would be correct if the Herbalist dismissed the Doctors’ viewpoint because the juice was healthy. Instead, he rejects it because of their bias.
  5. E
    mistakes the observation that Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited
    If the Herbalist concluded that his juice improves coordination, then this would be the answer, as that would rely on the premise that the coordination improved after drinking the juice. However, the Herbalist concludes there’s no reason not to try the juice - not that the juice has any benefits. As such, this answer is incorrect.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion