63.3.2 Artist: Almost everyone

Accounts Playable

I got this question correct (D was the flaw I anticipated), but during the exam and BR, I couldn't come up with a reason to eliminate E. According to the video explanation, E is explicitly supported in the passage, but I'm just not seeing it. Here is the video: http://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-63-section-3-question-02/

Almost everyone I know hopes to make a living as painter, musician, etc. if they currently work as dishwashers or store clerks. Therefore, almost all want to be artists, even though they might have to work other jobs to make money.

What I am looking for: Big sample flaw here. The sample the author uses is not varied enough and extremely limited: the people the author knows that are dishwashers or store-clerks. The author uses that as evidence to make a conclusion about "almost all" people in general.

Answer A: The argument isn't circular.

Answer B: The argument sort of makes a part to whole flaw, but it isn't as extreme as this answer choice. The argument never talks about what is true of EACH person (we only have "almost all" relationships) and even then, the evidence is only about people the author knows, not everyone in the country.

Answer C: Is the view widely held? We don't know.

Answer This is exactly what I anticipated, so I picked it over E.

Answer E: I read this, and got held up for second. Doesn't the argument do this? The conclusion is about "wanting to be an artists" while the premise is about "making a living as a painter, musician, or poet." Sure, there is an assumption that painters, musicians, or poets are types of artists, but that seems like an OK trivial assumption to me. If those people are not artists, the who are artists? I think the crux of eliminating it is that you don't "need" to make a distinction, but why not? Isn't there a pretty sizable difference between "wanting" to be something (like being a perpetually lazy college kid that doesn't have to wake up until 1:00) vs. making a "living" doing that? I don't see how it's OK for the argument to equivocate on these ideas.

iiiSpoon

@Accounts Playable With flaw questions, there's a "clear" flaw that one either gets or does not get (hopefully everyone here gets it and does not rely on the second tactic), otherwise risk having to let the AC's guide you. The reason I state this is because (D) is obviously the right answer so (E) should not result in you equivocating (and I state this because you're trying to make it the correct answer).

With that said, some of the flaw answer choices don't necessarily do anything. Yes, they point to something in the stimulus overlooks but it doesn't get at the heart of the flaw.

For (E), if you hope to make a living as an artist, then you want to be an artist so that you can make a living as an artist (small assumption jump here but it's not critical and rather safe). So, there is not a needed distinction between wanting to be something and wanting to do that something.

If the stimulus had it backwards, that being, "Most of the people I know want to be an artist, therefore most people hope to make a living as an artist," then, I think, they would be overlooking a much needed distinction.

I hope this helps.