LSAT 119 – Section 3 – Question 13

LSAT 119 - Section 3 - Question 13

June 2005

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:08

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT119 S3 Q13
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
A
5%
156
B
6%
155
C
0%
152
D
1%
152
E
88%
165
137
145
153
 +Medium 145.195 +SubsectionEasier

The question stem reads: Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the reasoning above? This is a Flaw question.

The stimulus begins by claiming that "it is a characteristic of great artists generally, and of great writers in particular, to have a discerning view of the basic social and political arrangements of the society in which they live." That was a mouthful. "It" refers to the ability to discern the social and political arrangements of society. Let's reorganize this sentence to read:"Having a discerning view of the basic social and political arrangments of society is a characteristic of great artists generally and great writers in particular.

I have italicized the "and" to highlight the sentence structure of one subject and two predicates. The subject is the ability to discern social and political arrangements in society. The predicates can be broken down to 1.) is a characteristic of great artists generally and 2.) is a characteristic of great writers in particular. Let us do away with predicate 1 and only focus on predicate 2. Now we get:

"The ability to discern society's social and political arrangements is a characteristic of great writers."

The argument then concludes that the greater the writer you are, the greater your ability to perceive your society's social and political arrangements.

The stimulus has claimed that being a great writer is sufficient to perceive society. The argument concluded that as you increase the sufficient condition (greatness in writing), you will see an increase in the necessary condition (ability to perceive society). This is flawed reasoning. Do you know what else being a great writer is sufficient for? Having two eyeballs. Using the stimulus' reasoning, the greater the writer you are, the more eyeballs you will have. You see where I am going here? That is our flaw. The stimulus assumes that more of a sufficient condition means more of a necessary condition. Let's go to the answer choices.

Answer Choice (A) is not what we are looking for. (A) is the fallacy of division: assuming what is true of the whole must be true for some or all of its parts. (A) would look better if the argument said: "Great artists generally have the ability to discern society; therefore, great writers have the ability to discern society.

Answer Choice (B) is incorrect. (B) would look better if the argument went: great writers sometimes have the ability to discern society. Therefore all great writers have the ability to discern society.

Answer Choice (C) is incorrect. The argument makes no mention of what writers or artists do not have the ability to discern.

Answer Choice (D) is not what the argument does. First, the argument is not concerned with great individuals, only great writers. Second, the argument does not make a sufficient vs. necessary error. (D) would look better if the argument went: "Great writers have the ability to discern society. Therefore only great writers have the ability to discern society.

Correct Answer Choice (E) is what we discussed.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 119 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply