Self-study
Support The universe as a whole necessarily tends toward greater disorder, or entropy. ████ ████ ██████ ██ ███████ ████ ███ ███████ █████████ ███ ██████ ████ ██████ ██████ █████████ ████████ ██ █████ ██ █████ ██ ███████████ ██ ███ █████████
The Common Flaw: Whole vs. Part
According to our analytics, this is one of the hardest LSAT questions ever. And there are hard parts for sure – we’ll work through them all as we go. But this question isn’t that hard if you’ve mastered the core curriculum.
If you’ve done your homework, you should absolutely recognize the “part vs. whole” common flaw at work here, which gets you down to (A) and (B) all on its own. Like actually, you should aspire to recognize this flaw by name and think “hey that’s part vs. whole!” when you see it.
No shade, though. You’re allowed not to be a complete LSAT master (yet). Let’s review the part vs. whole flaw:
Characteristics that apply to [something] as a whole don’t always* apply to all of [that thing’s] parts.
Likewise, characteristics that apply to all the parts of [something] don’t always* apply to [that thing] as a whole.
My cat – my whole cat – is a cat. But that doesn’t mean every individual hair on my cat is also a cat. I can’t say “look at all those thousands of cats all over my cat’s body.” That’s the flaw at work in this stimulus:
Premise: The whole universe tends toward disorder.
________
Conclusion: This little part of the universe (the earth’s biosphere) also tends toward disorder.
Note that our argument goes from whole to part, not part to whole. Our answer needs to preserve the directionality as well as the general flaw.
There’s one other point of confusion to address in this stimulus: the
*Side note: some characteristics do extend whole-to-part, or part-to-whole. Being made of pure gold is one example: if my ring is made of pure gold, all its atoms are also made of pure gold. And vice versa.
22.
Which one of the following ██ ████ ███████ ██ ███ ██████ █████████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████
a
Wooded Lake is ███ ██ ███ ████ █████████ █████ ██ ███ ██████ ████ ███████ ████ ███ ████ ████ ███ █████████ ██████ ██ ██████████████ █████ ██ █████ ██████ ████ ██ █ ████ ██ ███ ██ ███ ████ █████████ ███████ ██ ███ ████ ██████████
If you disliked (A), it’s likely because you mixed up its premise / conclusion structure. (A)’s first sentence is its conclusion. Why? Because of how the second sentence starts:
This (you know, the sentence above) follows from the fact that…
The first sentence follows from the second. Yep.
With that sorted, (A) preserves the stimulus’ “whole-to-part” structure:
Premise: This whole system of lakes is [real pretty].
________
Conclusion: This little part of that system (Wooded Lake) is [real pretty].
b
This has been ███ ███████ █████ ██ ████ ██████ ██ ███ ████ █████████████ ███ ██ ███ █████ ███ ████ ██████ ██ ██ ██████ ████ ███ ███████ ███ ████████████ █████
(B) preserves the stimulus’ “whole-to-part” structure, but it should fail on your first shallow dip through the answer choices. Why? Because of the mismatch in logical strength between its likely conclusion and the stimulus’
But let’s trace (B)’s logic just for fun. As it happens, the likely conclusion makes the “whole-to-part” jump a lot more reasonable. First consider an alternate version of (B) that does match the stimulus’ structure:
HYPOTHETICAL CORRECT (B)
Premise: This was the coldest April in the last 50 years.
________
Conclusion: Any given day in April was the coldest day* in the last 50 years.
*“Day” here needs to mean “instance of that calendar date.” Like “April 15th was the coldest April 15th in the last 50 years.”
Anywho, that’s not what (B) says. The real (B) says any given day is likely to be [the coldest one in 50 years]. That’s a lot more reasonable. Whether it’s true or not depends on how exactly we define “the coldest April.”
Oh right, and (B) doesn’t even say “any given day is likely to be the coldest one in 50 years.” It says each day is likely to be unseasonably cold. That conceptual jump makes the conclusion a lot more reasonable as well, and it doesn’t occur in the stimulus.
c
The manifest indicates ████ █████ ████ ██ ████ ██████ ████ ██████ ████ ██████████ ██████ ████ ██████ ██ ████ █████ ███ █████ ███████ █████ ███ █████████ ██ █████ █████ █████ ████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ███████ ██ ██████████ █████ ████████ ████ ██████ ████ ██ ███ ███████████ ████████
Part of (C)’s allure is that it preserves the stimulus’ irrelevant context. If you want a deeper take on why the “it may not appear this way, but actually it is” element isn’t structurally relevant, review the lesson on context.
Aside from that, (C) doesn’t preserve the stimulus’ “whole-to-part” structure, mainly because both the premise and the conclusion apply to “every deck.” A matching version of (C) would look something like:
HYPOTHETICAL CORRECT (C)
Premise: This cruise ship as a whole houses some commercial cargo.
________
Conclusion: Every deck on this cruise ship (or even this particular deck) houses some commercial cargo.
(C) is really a test of whether you’ve proactively identified the part vs. whole flaw. Like you probably didn’t pick (C) because you were looking for the “whole-to-part” structure and thought you found it – you probably picked (C) because you were looking broadly for matchy stuff and (C) matched the stimulus’ context.
As a side note, another flaw (C) has going for it is the difference between houses some cargo and is devoted to housing cargo. Cool if you noticed that – it’s a real thing. That conceptual shift doesn’t happen in the stimulus, though, so it’s actually a reason to dislike (C).
d
Although Hopper claims ██ ████ ████ ███████ ██ ███████ ████ ██ ███ █████ ████ ███ ████████ █████████ ███████ ███████ ████ ████ █████ ██████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ██ █████ ██████ ██ █ ██████ ███ ██ ███ █████ ████ ██ ███ █████ █████ ██████ ██████ ███ █████████████ ███████ ██ ██ ███ ███████ ███ ██████
If you’re looking for the “whole-to-part” structure, you can dismiss (D) without getting too far into the weeds because its core premise applies to parts:
Premise: Every person on the cleanup crew…
There’s also a huge gaping assumption in (D): did the accident happen in the grain area?
There’s no such assumption in the stimulus.
e
Two of the █████ ████████ █████ ██ ████ ████ ████████ ███ ██████ ██ ████ ████ ██████ ████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ █ ██████ ███████████ ███ ████████ █████████ ██ ██████ ██ ████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ██ █████████
If you’re looking for the “whole-to-part” structure, you can dismiss (E) without getting too far into the weeds because it goes part-to-whole:
Premise: 2 of the 7 parts are unsafe.
________
Conclusion: The whole assembly is unsafe.
It’s also a lot more reasonable. As mentioned in a footnote to the analysis section, some characteristics do extend part-to-whole. Safety feels like one of them: if one part of your airplane is unsafe to use, for example, the whole airplane is probably also unsafe to use.
So yeah, (E) goes part-to-whole instead of whole-to-part, and it also involves a characteristic that much more reasonably extends across those two concepts.