PrepTest 153

[lcid:3709] Prep Test 153 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S2 Logical reasoning

Question prompt

People should patronize businesses Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: B

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Question Type

Weaken Questions

Answer choices

  1. A
    Some businesses that have Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited
    Incorrect. A bummer, to be sure, but not the Weaken answer we're looking for. It's true that some businesses appear more ethical from the outside, but are inconsistent in reality. But if we're not relating this back to the equivocation in the stimulus, it doesn't hurt the conclusion.
  2. B
    Meeting high ethical standards Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B matches the stem
    Correct. Argument or Facts:
    Argument

    Valid or Flawed:
    Flawed

    Question Type:
    Weaken

    Stimulus Summary:
    We should patronize businesses that hold themselves to high ethical standards. And the media needs to help us patronize businesses that meet high ethical standards. To that end, the news media should publicize notable ethical acts by businesses, to help us shop there when necessary. Just hearing about a company doing good can motivate someone to try their products or services.

    Answer Anticipation:
    Notice the difference between "high ethical standards" and "notable ethical act?" One good turn does not stack up to consistently high standards. The right answer will highlight the equivocation in the stimulus in order to attack the conclusion.

    Answer Explanation:
    There we are. Exactly what we anticipated: it points out the equivocation, by noting that simply not being unethical might be the key to high ethical standards, as opposed to a few isolated, highly ethical acts.

    Key Takeaway:
    This one's tricky, because it's got the same word used differently. (Another, less common form of equivocation fallacy, alongside the "apples and oranges" type.) A single highly ethical act is equated to the state of being a highly ethical business. Pay attention to key terms being used to mean two different things. Another example: if a stimulus used "value" to refer to cash value and then tried to combine that statement with a premise about moral values, they'd be equivocating.
  3. C
    It is relatively easy Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    Incorrect. This could be true, but the stimulus says "high ethical standards." It doesn't say that the businesses in question should each have their own definition of "high!"
  4. D
    The news media is Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    Incorrect. This doesn't weaken the argument. Easy or not, the argument says that media should publicize ethical actions. It doesn't say they do!
  5. E
    Some businesses that meet Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited
    Incorrect. Also probably true, but doesn't weaken the argument in the stimulus. We're looking for something that highlights equivocation between a single act and high standards. This just adds a whole other consideration in, which doesn't help weaken the stimulus at all.

What this tests

Discussion

  • Why B? 1 reply

    Started by rlquerubin