PrepTest 157

[lcid:3726] Prep Test 157 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S3 Logical reasoning

Question prompt

Anarchist: People can either 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.

Argument or Facts

Argument

Valid or Flawed

Flawed

Strategy Overview

Argument or facts? Always argument, so identify premises and conclusions of argument Anticipate why the premises are not enough to prove that the conclusion is true.
Checking to see if a common logical fallacy is committed is very helpful.

Answer Anticipation

On an Errors in Reasoning question, we should take the time to articulate why the premise or premises aren't enough to prove that the conclusion is true. To that end, we can examine whether the conclusion makes any bold claims or whether the argument relies on any reasoning techniques associated with common flaws. This question is challenging because its flaw is not readily apparent. However, note that the anarchist's conclusion is prescriptive — they argue that people "should" fight for anarchy. Asserting that we "should" do something implies that the pros of doing that thing outweigh the cons. Asserting that we "should" do A instead of B implies that A's benefits outweigh B's; it also implies that B's drawbacks outweigh A's. The anarchist lays out two types of governments: anarchy and totalitarianism. Even if those are the only two options for governments, are we sure the anarchist proves that anarchy is the better one? The anarchist lays out some compelling downsides to totalitarianism — it destroys the spirit and makes life miserable. Not great! Still, the anarchist doesn't consider the downsides of anarchy. Maybe that makes life even more miserable? So, the correct answer might say that the anarchist overlooks whether anarchy has even more significant cons than totalitarianism. But still, this is an Errors in Reasoning question, so we should be so narrow-minded in our anticipation. Still, we have a good idea about why this argument is flawed, so we can evaluate the answer choices with confidence.

Answer choices

  1. A
    Governments provide many social Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    No, this answer choice makes a factually untrue statement. The anarchist does attempt to explain why anarchy is a desirable alternative to totalitarianism. The anarchist says that "government control of all facets of human life destroys the spirit, making life miserable." That's definitely a reason why anarchy is a better alternative. The problem with the anarchist's argument is that the anarchist doesn't compare the problems with totalitarianism with the problems of anarchy, not that the anarchist didn't offer any reasons why anarchy might be better.

  2. B
    By asserting that people Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    Again, this answer choice makes a factually untrue statement. The anarchist never says that people "should" tolerate totalitarian governments. The anarchist says people can tolerate such governments (or, alternatively, fight for anarchy), but the anarchist never says that people should tolerate totalitarianism.

  3. C
    The argument infers from Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    This answer choice makes another factually untrue statement. The anarchist doesn't infer the claim that totalitarianism is objectionable from the premise that people should fight for anarchy. This gets the direction of support backward. The anarchist establishes that totalitarianism is objectionable as a premise. From that premise, the anarchist infers the claim that people should fight for anarchy.

  4. D
    The argument offers no Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    This is another factually untrue statement. The anarchist offers evidence that totalitarianism destroys the spirit and makes life miserable. The anarchist says that "history shows that" totalitarianism leads to these consequences. That's nebulous evidence, for sure, but evidence nonetheless.

    Besides, even if the anarchist didn't say, "history shows that," that would be OK. The anarchist establishes that totalitarianism destroys the spirit and makes life miserable as a premise. On Errors in Reasoning questions, we have to accept premises as true.

  5. E
    The argument sets out Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E matches the stem

    OK, this wasn't what we anticipated. And, sure, the anarchist does this. And, after having good reason to eliminate the remaining answer choices, we have to reluctantly select this one.

    But we're just going to say it: if this is the correct answer, this is a poorly written question. The anarchist indeed establishes anarchy and totalitarianism as the only available political alternatives. However, the anarchist does this as a premise. On Errors in Reasoning questions, we're supposed to accept the premises as true. We're supposed to analyze why those premises aren't enough to prove that the conclusion or a premise/conclusion is true. Every other Errors in Reasoning question plays by this rule (save one other poorly written question from an early LSAT), so we're not sure why this question doesn't follow this well-established convention. If the anarchist supported the claim that "People can either fight for anarchy or they can tolerate totalitarian government control" with another premise, (E) would be an unproblematic answer. But since that claim is clearly just a premise, this answer choice doesn't describe a flaw in the argument's reasoning.

    So, the moral of the story is that the people who make the LSAT are human, and sometimes they make mistakes. This question is one of those mistakes. It doesn't surprise us that this question was released as the "experimental" section of a Prep Test. We don't think this question would show up on a real section that counted toward your final score.

    More than anything, don't get the wrong idea from this question. Trying to look for answer choices that say "maybe the premise isn't true" will be a waste of time on other Errors in Reasoning questions. If you got this question correct, that's great. That means you understand how to eliminate answer choices that misdescribe the argument on an Errors in Reasoning question. That's a vital skill. But if you got this question wrong because you thought (E) argues with a premise, don't sweat it. That's the right instinct to have on Errors in Reasoning questions.

Discussion

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

View all discussions Start a discussion