7Sage LSAT

Self-study
Group courses
Tutoring
Admissions consulting
Discussion & resources

Explanations

PTF97.S1.Q22

SECTION 1 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25

SECTION 2 · rc

PASSAGE 1
Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8

PASSAGE 2
Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14

PASSAGE 3
Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20

PASSAGE 4
Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

SECTION 3 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25

SECTION 4 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24

PrepTest F97 - Section 1 - Question 22

Question

Explanation

Analytics

Show analysis

Support In casual conversation, people experience little psychological discomfort in admitting that they have some particular character flaw, but only if they consider trivial the flaw to which they admit. ██████████ ██ ██ █ ██████ ████████████ ██ ██████████ ███████ ██████ ████ ██ ██ ███ ███ ████ ██████████ █████████ █████ ███ ██████████ ████ ███ ████████ ████ ████ ██ ██ ████████

Structure: Principle-Application

The argument starts with a general principle: people will experience little psychological discomfort admitting a character flaw in a casual conversation only if they consider the flaw trivial. The argument then draws a conclusion that applies the principle to a more specific situation: if someone in a given casual conversation "readily admits" to a serious character flaw, they must not think the flaw is serious.

Notable Assumptions

When we apply a principle to a situation, we assume the situation fits the principle. Let's check if that's true for this argument. The principle says that in a casual conversation, if someone experiences little psychological discomfort admitting a character flaw, they must view the flaw as trivial:

little psychological discomfort → flaw trivial

The conclusion states that if, in some casual conversation, a person readily admits to a serious character flaw, they must not think the flaw is serious:

readily admits → not think flaw serious

Though thinking a flaw is "trivial" and thinking a flaw is "not serious" basically mean the same thing, the argument still makes a significant jump in applying the principle: it assumes that if someone "readily admits" something, that person must experience "little psychological discomfort" in admitting it. In other words:

readily admit → little psychological discomfort

This assumption isn't necessarily true, but it's certainly a necessary assumption for this argument to be true. If this were false — if someone could readily admit to something even while experiencing a high level of psychological discomfort — then the argument's application of the principle would be incorrect.

Analysis by ArdaschirArguelles

Show answer

22.

Which one of the following ██ ██ ██████████ █████████ ██ ███ █████████

Most character flaws ███ ██████████ ███████ ██ █████ ███ ████ █████

This isn't a necessary assumption. Whether or not most character flaws are considered serious by the people who have them only changes how many of those flaws they can admit without much psychological discomfort, according to this argument. But the argument is about the reasons people admit certain flaws and the way they admit those flaws (readily or not, and with or without psychological discomfort) — not which specific flaws, or how many flaws, they are willing to admit.

People admit to ██████ ████ █████ █████████ █████ ████ ████ █████ ██████ ████████ ████████

Irrelevant. The argument doesn't talk at all about flaws other people think are trivial. Even if this answer choice weren't true, the argument could still be true, because a person could still consider their own flaws trivial and be willing to admit them even if most other people did not think they were trivial.

In casual conversation, ██████ █████ ██ ██████ █████████ █████ ████ ████ ████ █████

Irrelevant. The argument isn't about the conversational situations where people confess to a character flaw, but more so about how they do it — "readily" and/or with little psychological discomfort — and whether they consider those flaws serious. We could negate this answer choice and the argument could still be true.

In casual conversation, ██████ ███████ █████ ██ ██████ █ █████████ ████ ████ ████ ████ █████████ ██████ ████ ██████ █████████████ ███████████

Correct. This is exactly the assumption we identified in our analysis:

readily admit → little psychological discomfort

If this assumption weren't true — i.e., if it were possible for someone to readily admit to something even when they experienced a good deal of psychological discomfort — then the argument would fall apart, because the principle would no longer apply to the situation in the conclusion.

In casual conversation, ██████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ██████ ████ █████ ████ ██████ ██ ███████████ ██████████ ██ █████ ██████████

Irrelevant. The argument talks about how people themselves view their own character flaws. We don't know how this relates to whether or not those flaws give others an unfavorable impression of their character. This statement doesn't have to be true for the argument to be true. Even if people do speak about things that would give others an unfavorable impression of their character, the reasons they do so might still be what the argument describes — that they view those particular things as trivial. So negating (E) doesn't destroy the argument.

Difficulty

Question

75% of people who answer get this correct

This is a moderately difficult question.

CURVE

Score of students with a 50% chance of getting this right

25% 144

152

75% 161

Analysis

Question Stem Tags

Necessary assumption

Stems that ask us to identify a claim that, if NOT true, would entirely undermine the reasoning in the stimulus.

Stimulus Tags

Rule-application

Stimuli that involve the application of a general rule to specific scenarios.

Answer Popularity

Popularity Avg. score

153

155

149

75%

165

10%

157

Question history

You don't have any history with this question.. yet!