PT65.S4.Q11 - prairieview yard size

extramedium

I understand the flaw in the correct answer choice, but not how it applies to Tom's argument in the stimulus.

D : "Fails to apply a general rule to all relevant circumstances" is the correct AC here.

Conclusion: No it isn't the the best one to rent
Premise/Sub-conclusion: The yard isn't as big as it looks.
Premise: Property lines in Prairieview start 20 feet from the street, so what looks like part of the yard is really city property.

Rolanda points out his flaw: "That's true of all the other properties we've looked at too."

What is true of all the other properties we've looked at? General rule: Property lines start 20 feet from the street, so what looks like part of the yard is really city property. The yards aren't as big as they look. (Is this last sentence included in the general rule?)

Would this still be flawed if Tom said "None of the yards are as big as they look?" I do not understand where exactly this flaw is committed in his argument. If someone could point this out, I would be very grateful. Thanks.
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-65-section-4-question-11/

Sami

@extramedium said:

This flaw definitely get repeated on a few LSAT tests. Maybe a simpler example might help see this flaw:

I want to use this ink pen and not this ballpoint pen because the ink pen writes with black ink. (But what if the ballpoint pen also used black ink; then I am committing a flaw by discriminating between two things based on a criteria that applies to all). If both pen write with black ink, I can't chose one over the other based on the reasoning that one writes with black ink. My reasoning for choosing ink pen based on black ink color in this case sounds absurd because both pen write with black ink.

I do not understand where exactly this flaw is committed in his argument. If someone could point this out, I would be very grateful. Thanks.

The flaw is committed by Tom who objects to Rolando declaring one house is better than the other. Tom objected to Rolanda by saying the yard is smaller than it looks. But if all of the houses they have seen have smaller yard than they look then Tom can't say this one isn't the best because of how small the yard looks. His reasoning for why we shouldn't prefer this house doesn't hold because it applies to all houses they have seen. Just like how we couldn't say this ink pen is better than this ballpoint pen because ink pen uses black ink if ballpoint pen also uses black ink.

Would this still be flawed if Tom said "None of the yards are as big as they look?"

If Tom had said none of the houses yards are as big as they look then he wouldn't have an objection to Rolanda's argument that this house isn't the best one out of all they have looked at. Tom's main objection to this house being the best one out of all they have looked at is the size of the yard looks big but is not. But if all the houses had that, then he can't say we should rule this house out as being the best because of how the yard looks.

extramedium

@Sami

Thanks for your response. One more question though. Is the conclusion here implying that there is another house out there with a bigger yard or is it just saying that this one doesn't have the biggest yard?

You really cleared this up for me though. That example was perfect. I guess I didn't realize that failing to apply a generalization could also be used to deny a claim. And the denial here doesn't really seem all that strong. I think if he'd said "No, it isn't. This other one has the biggest yard" rather than "No, it isn't," the flaw would've been more apparent. What do you think?

dcdcdcdcdc

The error committed by Tom rests on his use of the singular "the yard" in his final sentence. He is referring to the specific house that Rolanda was suggesting to rent that has the largest yard of houses the two have viewed. He is basing his conclusion on the idea that the large yard of this one house is deceptive because 20 ft of that would be city property and thus he strongly implies that the yard is actually not the biggest yard they have seen.

However, we can equally apply the 20 ft reduction (actually, we must apply for houses in Prairieview) so that using Tom's reasoning just leads us straight back to Rolanda's original argument, just every yard is now reduced by 20 ft on their respective property lines.

If Tom has made a claim about all yards in his final sentence, he would have avoided the flaw of failing to apply the rule to all cases, but his argument would be useless still. The yard in question would still be agreed by both to be the largest of all houses viewed and so Tom has not supplied any information to counter Rolanda's claim, but has instead just flatly denied it.

Sami

@extramedium said:
@Sami

Thanks for your response. One more question though. Is the conclusion here implying that there is another house out there with a bigger yard or is it just saying that this one doesn't have the biggest yard?

I looked back at the question and I think its saying both. If it isn't the biggest yard they have seen then there must be some other house with a bigger yard and if there is a house with a bigger yard then this one doesn't have the biggest yard.

You really cleared this up for me though. That example was perfect. I guess I didn't realize that failing to apply a generalization could also be used to deny a claim. And the denial here doesn't really seem all that strong. I think if he'd said "No, it isn't. This other one has the biggest yard" rather than "No, it isn't," the flaw would've been more apparent. What do you think?

I can see what you are saying and yeah the flaw may have been more apparent that way. But once you know a flaw it kind of doesn't matter if it applies to one thing or a group of things - you just end up seeing it. I think now that you know this kind of flaw it will probably be more apparent to you the next time you come across something similar.