Self-study
Devan has never bothered to be kind to me. ███ ███ ██ ███████ ████ ██ ██████████████ ███ █████ ██ ████ ███ ████ ███ ██ █████ █████ ████████ ███ ███████████ ██ ██ ██ ██████
Common Flaw: The False Dichotomy
This stimulus presents a false dichotomy between Friend and Enemy – it assumes that since Devan doesn’t qualify as a friend, he must therefore be an enemy. But maybe they’re strangers, or acquaintances, or maybe Devan is a celebrity the author is stalking. Other relationships exist.
In practice, this question tests how well you’ve internalized our core curriculum. If you’ve done your homework, you should absolutely recognize the false dichotomy common flaw at work, which alone suffices to select the right answer in this question.
For real, you should aspire to recognize this flaw by name and think “hey that’s a false dichotomy!” when you see it. If your experience of this question was anything other than “see common flaw; pick common flaw,” the lesson you should take away is to review your common flaws.
No shade, though. You’re allowed not to be a complete LSAT master (yet). Let’s review the concept of a false dichotomy:
A dichotomy is a situation in which there are only two [options / categories / subsets].
True or False is a dichotomy. Dead or Alive is a dichotomy.
A false dichotomy is when an argument acts like there are only two [options / categories / subsets], when in fact there are more.
Red or Blue could be a setup for a false dichotomy. Left or Right could be a setup for a false dichotomy. Green exists. Straight exists.
There’s a possible world in which two answer choices both preserve the flaw, in which case you’ll have to go back and diagram the stimulus more thoroughly. But that doesn’t happen here. In fact, in this particular question, the stimulus’ other structural elements (there are three necessary conditions; premise 1 is about one condition; premise 2 is about the other two conditions, etc.) turn out to be a bunch of red herrings. They’re irrelevant characteristics that the wrong answer choices can mirror to seem more tempting.
That’s further punishment for anyone who comes into the answers looking for anything other than a false dichotomy.
22.
Which one of the following ████████ ██████ █████████ ████ ███████ ██ ███ ██████ █████████ █████████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████
a
Each officer of ████ ████ ████ ██ █ ██████ ██ ███ █████ █████████ ██ ██ █ █████████ ███████ ██ ████ ███████ ███████████████ ██████ ██████ ██ ██ ████████ ███ ███ ███ ████ ████ █ ██████ ███ ███ ████ ███ ██ ███ █ █████████ ███████
There’s no false dichotomy in (A). The dichotomy in question here is between can be an officer and cannot be an officer. That’s a legit dichotomy.
Plenty of other similarities, though. Look at those three necessary conditions. Look how (A) argues someone doesn’t count as [thing] because they don’t fulfill the requirements of [thing].
b
In order to ███████ ████ █████ █████ ██ ██ ███████ ██ █ █████ ████ ███ ██ ██ ███████ ██████████ ███ █████ ████ ████ ██ ███ ██████ ███ █████ █ ███ ███ █████ ████ █████ ██████████ ████ ████████ ███ ████ █████ ██ ███ ██ ███████ ██ ██ ██████ ███
While (B) features two ideas that are not a true dichotomy, the argument doesn’t treat them like a dichotomy. Lemme break that down a bit.
The best defense of (B) is that it creates a false dichotomy between Thrive and is not as healthy as it should be. Treating those concepts as a dichotomy, you might argue, assumes all plants should be thriving (i.e. any non-thriving plant isn’t as healthy as it should be).
Two responses there – a vibes one and a technical one. From a vibes perspective, we’re just looking for a more extreme false dichotomy. For (B) to match the stimulus’ friend/enemy dichotomy, really we want it to say “my plant isn’t thriving; therefore it’s DEAD.”
From a technical perspective, (B) doesn’t actually follow the reasoning “since my plant is not thriving, it is therefore not as healthy as it should be.” Instead, it concludes that this gardener’s various failings (not sunny; no water) provide a causal explanation for the fact that their plant is not as healthy as it should be. That causal relationship is the conclusion, and the fact that the plant isn’t healthy is actually a premise.
c
This book has ████ ██████ ████████ ███ ██████ ████████ ████ ███ ███████ ███████ █████ ██ ███ ████████ █████ ██ ████ ███ ███ ███████ ████ █████ ████ █████
(C) features a false dichotomy between Love and Hostility – it assumes that since no one was hostile to the book, they must therefore have loved it. But maybe the critics felt “meh” about it. Maybe they thought it was mediocre. Other attitudes exist.
(C) notably does not mirror many of the stimulus’ other structural elements. And that’s an important lesson to take away – in Parallel Flaw questions, it’s sometimes enough to preserve the flaw without matching the whole structure. Notice I say “sometimes,” though. As mentioned in the analysis, sometimes two (or more) answers will preserve the flaw and you do need to decide between them based on how well they match the stimulus' structure. Ahh the LSAT. What a joy.
d
A decision in █████ ██ ██████████ ███ ████████ ██████ ██ ███ ████ █████████ ███████ ████ ██ █████ ██ ███████ ██████████ ██ ███████ ███ █████████ ████████ ██ ███████ ████████ ███ ██ ██ ████████ ████ ██ █████ ███ ██ █████ █████ ███████ ████ ████ ██ ██████████
First off, there’s no false dichotomy in (D). The dichotomy in question here would be… I don’t even know what it would be. I guess (D) is saying there are four equally worthy options, so any reason you might use to argue for one of them applies to all of them. Which… that’s just a different argument pattern altogether from that in the stimulus.
Anyway, the word possible in (D)’s conclusion should also be a red flag, because the stimulus’ conclusion is certain (he is my enemy).
e
If everyone were ██ ███████ █████ ██ █████████ ████ ███████ █████ ████ ████████ ██ █ █████ ███ ████ ██████ ███ ███ █████ ██ ████████ ███ ███ █████ ████ █████████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████████ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ████ ████████ ██ █ █████
First off, there’s no false dichotomy in (E). The dichotomy in question is between will come crashing to a halt and will not come crashing to a halt. That’s a legit dichotomy right there.
Aside from that, though, (E) also confuses sufficiency and necessity – it establishes some sufficient conditions for a certain outcome…
Everyone is an author, poet, or academic → Society Crash
…then negates those sufficient conditions to conclude society won’t crash.
Oh also, the word most is sus too – it’s a specific quantifier that significantly weakens the argument and doesn’t appear in the stimulus.