Self-study
Company spokesperson: Conclusion Although our products are the most expensive in our industry, they are also the best available. █████ ████ ████████ ███ ████ █████████ ███████ ████ ██ ███ ██ ███ ████████████ ██ ██ ████ ██ ████ ███ ██ ██████ █████ ███ ████████ ██ █████ ████ ██ █████ ██ █████
Objective: Flaw / Descriptive Weakening Questions
In Flaw / Descriptive Weakening questions, we approach the stimulus with a critical eye, looking for unreasonable assumptions and faulty reasoning methods. With practice, it’s often within reach to proactively identify the argument’s flaw well enough to move into the answer choices looking for that specific flaw.
This process is aided significantly by the fact that the LSAT writers routinely pull from a list of common flaws – learning to recognize these flaws when they appear in stimuli and answer choices will save you an enormous amount of time and mental energy.
Argument Summary
Circular reasoning is seldom featured in stimuli, although it’s quite common as a wrong answer choice in flaw questions. When it does appear, though, it’s just 😘🤌. So much fun.
Circular reasoning, or begging the question, is when an argument’s premises and conclusion presuppose one another: the premises provide no additional information or evidence to support the conclusion.
Our favorite example of circular reasoning comes from this precious relic of the ancient internet: “Look at this! This is an aspen. You can tell it’s an aspen because of the way it is!”
Here is the logical structure of the company spokesperson’s argument:
Our products are the most expensive, and they’re the best.
Why? Because look at all these cheaper products. They’re worse!
Why? Because the best products are the most expensive products!
Why? Because look at our product! It’s the best one and it’s the most expensive!
(Why? Because look at all these cheaper products…)
With enough practice – specifically, with targeted practice focused on identifying common flaws – it’s entirely reasonable to expect yourself to identify this stimulus as circular reasoning, rapidly recognize the answer choice that points to circular reasoning, and move on from this question in less than 30 seconds. That process isn’t mandatory, of course, but it’s attainable for every test taker with time and conscious effort.
19.
The reasoning in the company ██████████████ ████████ ██ ██████ ██ ████ ███ ████████
a
contains a premise ████ ███████████ ███ █████ ██ ███ ██████████
When the LSAT points to circular reasoning, it uses wording like this. Conclusions and premises presupposing the truth of one another. Unless another answer choice is worded similarly, you can just say “it’s probably this one” without needing to parse out exactly how the premise presupposes the conclusion in this question.
b
fails to make █ ██████ ███████████ ███████ ███ ████ ███████ █████████ █████████ ███ ███ ████ ███████ ████ █████ ██ ████████
There certainly is a conceptual distinction between the best available product and the best product possible. That distinction exists.
But our argument’s conclusion isn’t about the best product possible. It doesn’t care either way about proving that point.
This is a common pattern in Flaw wrong answer choices: “the argument fails to justify a conclusion that’s different than the one it actually makes."
c
treats a cause ██ █ ███████ █████ ███ ████ █████████ ██ ██ ██████ ██ ███ █████ ███ ████ █████████
(C) points to the common flaw of cause and effect. In Flaw questions with causal reasoning, some version of “messes up the whole cause and effect and correlation thing” is very often the right answer.
For (C) to be right, you need to find a specific premise that establishes “the products are expensive because of [something].” Then you need to find another specific claim that says “the products are expensive, and therefore [that same thing].”
That’s two causal claims you need to pin down in the stimulus.
But we don’t have any causal claims here – all we have are correlative statements. The cleanest one to explain is the first sentence, which just lays out “expensive” and “best,” with “although” implying a relationship like “you might not think these two things could go together, but they actually do.”
“Although my shirt is hilarious, it is also ugly.” That statement isn’t saying the shirt is ugly because it’s hilarious, or hilarious because ugly – it just presents two features of the shirt.
d
presumes that because █████████ ██ ████ ██ ████ ██ █ █████████ ████████ ██ ██ ████ ████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ █ █████
(D) points to the common flaw of part vs. whole. You know, just because a cake is delicious doesn’t mean raw eggs and flour and butter and salt are each delicious on their own.
But the conclusion isn’t “our company is the best company,” it’s “our products are the best products.” The spokesperson talks consistently about the parts throughout the argument.
e
bases a conclusion ██ ██████ ████ ███ ████████████ ████ ████ █████
Inconsistent is a very strong word. You need two claims that cannot possibly both be true. It’s almost always wrong to accuse an LSAT argument of being inconsistent.
Inconsistent isn’t just “Parties are Bill’s favorite activity, but he hasn’t been to a party in ages.” Inconsistent is “Parties are Bill’s favorite activity, but parties are not Bill’s favorite activity.”