PrepTest 112

[lcid:3546] Prep Test 112 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S3 Logical reasoning

Question prompt

Essayist: Knowledge has been 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

Methods of Reasoning Questions

Stimulus Summary

Definition of knowledge - (1) A true belief (2) formed by a reliable process
Criticism of definition - If someone was reliably clairvoyant, we wouldn’t accept their claims
Essayist - I agree, but it’s because we don’t believe clairvoyance is a reliable process.

Answer Anticipation

This argument has a few pieces to it that we need to understand before we can tackle the answer choices!
It starts by bringing up a proposed definition of “knowledge” that has two parts to it - knowledge is a “true belief” that is “formed by a reliable process.”
It then pivots to a viewpoint that disagrees with the definition - and these critics use the example of clairvoyance in order to question it. They say that we wouldn’t accept someone’s claims that came from the reliable power of clairvoyance, so the definition must be wrong.
The Essayist agrees with them that we wouldn’t accept those claims. However, she mentions that this isn’t because the definition of “knowledge” is wrong, which is what the opposing point claims. Rather, she says, it’s because we don’t accept that clairvoyance is a reliable process - it doesn’t match the second part of the definition of knowledge. Thus, that example doesn’t prove that the definition of “knowledge” is wrong - just that we don’t consider information gained by clairvoyance to count as knowledge.
So the Essayist rebuts the opposing point by showing that it actually addresses something about clairvoyance, not about the definition of knowledge, as it claims to in its conclusion.

Answer choices

  1. A
    asserting that the objection Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A matches the stem
    This answer reflects the Essayist’s reasoning. She points out that we wouldn’t accept claims based on clairvoyance because we view it as unreliable - in other words, we don’t believe it meets the definition of knowledge. That’s different from calling that specific definition into question, and yet the critics’ conclusion is focused on that definition. Since this answer correctly describes the author’s argument, it’s the correct answer.
  2. B
    asserting that the case Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    If anything, the Essayist argues that claims gleaned from clairvoyance aren’t knowledge since we don’t accept it as a reliable process, thus failing to meet the definition of knowledge.
  3. C
    arguing against the assumption Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    The Essayist states that “we” don’t believe clairvoyance is reliable, including herself in the group. While she does go through a thought experiment - “Were we to believe in clairvoyance” - but that’s very different from arguing that it is reliable.
  4. D
    explaining that the definition Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    There’s no discussion of personally choosing a definition. That’s not how words work!
  5. E
    demonstrating that the case Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited
    This is a very tempting answer choice! However, the Essayist says that “we do not believe” clairvoyance is a reliable process. That’s not enough to show that clairvoyance doesn’t meet the definition of “knowledge,” just that we don’t believe it does.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion