Self-study
Helen: Conclusion It was wrong of my brother Mark to tell our mother that the reason he had missed her birthday party the evening before was that he had been in a traffic accident and that by the time he was released from the hospital emergency room the party was long over. ██████ █████████ ████ ██ █████ ███ █████ ██ █████ ████ ███████ ██████ ███ █████ ███ ████ ██ ████ ███████████████ ███ ██████ █████████ ███ █████ ███ ██████
Q21 Is Super Rare
·
(And Q20 Is Normal)
This stimulus serves both Q20 and Q21. Q20 is a straightforward Main Conclusion question, and Q21 is a super-rare exception to the heuristic that the LSAT never asks us to question premises. Helen’s argument is perfectly valid – it’s just based on a ridiculous premise:
P1 (Ridiculous*): Saying false things is always morally wrong.
P2: [Mark’s big ol’ lie] was false.
________
Con: It was morally wrong of Mark to tell [this big ol’ lie]. ← (There's the answer to Q20, btw.)
*If you don’t see the silliness in Premise 1, note that it makes being honestly mistaken morally wrong. Like “Oops I said our meeting was tomorrow, but I misspoke – it’s actually the day after tomorrow. THEREFORE I AM BAD.”
Being in good LSAT shape means getting super weirded out when you find a seemingly valid argument in the stimulus of a Flaw question. Usually when that happens, you’re just missing something subtle. My take on a realistic mindset to bring into the answer choices is something like:
This argument probably does have a flaw somewhere that I’m just not seeing. But if it really is valid, I guess the absurd premise about how all false statements are morally wrong is a weak point.
Or you don't recognize any flaws or weaknesses up front, and you only accept the “absurd premise” flaw when none of the answer choices point out something you missed.
20.
The main conclusion drawn in ███████ ████████ ██ ████
a
Mark did not ████ ███ ██████ ███ █████
This expresses the fact that Mark told a lie. The argument's conclusion is that telling the lie was wrong.
b
the real reason ████ ██████ ███ ████████ ████████ █████ ███ ████ ██ ███ █████████ ███ █████ ██
This is a supporting fact establishing that Mark was lying to his mother. Our conclusion is that telling the lie was wrong.
c
it is wrong ██ ███████ ██ █████ █████ ███ █████ ███████ ██ ██ █████████ ██ ████████ ████ ███ ███ █████████ ████ █████ ████ █████ ██ ██████ ███████ █████ ███████
This expresses a general rule that applies to all cases like this one, whereas our conclusion only applies to this particular case.
d
it was wrong ██ ████ ██ ████ ███ ██████ ████ ██ ███ ██████ ███ ████████ █████ ██ █ ██████ ██ ██████ ████ ██ █ ███████ ████████
This states the argument's main conclusion precisely: when Mark told [that big ol' lie], that was wrong.
e
it is always █████ ███ ██ ████ ███ █████
This (almost) restates Helen's ridiculous premise that saying false things is always wrong. (E)'s claim is less ridiculous than Helen's, but really (E) is wrong because the claim is a premise, not the conclusion.