LSAT 106 – Section 2 – Question 04

LSAT 106 - Section 2 - Question 04

June 1999

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Target time: 0:55

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question QuickView	Type	Tags	Answer Choices	Curve	Question Difficulty	Psg/Game/S Difficulty	Explanation
PT106 S2 Q04	+LR +Exp	Method of reasoning or descriptive +Method Analogy +An	A 93% 165 B 2% 150 C 4% 157 D 1% 154 E 1% 145	132 140 149	+Easier	147.566 +SubsectionMedium

Whittaker: There can be no such thing as the number of medical school students who drop out before their second year, because if they drop out, they never have a second year.

Hudson: By your reasoning I cannot help but become rich, because there is similarly no such thing as my dying before my first million dollars is in the bank.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position

In response to Whittaker’s claim that there is no such thing as the number of medical students who drop out before the second year, Hudson similarly concludes he cannot help but become rich. As evidence, he states there is no such thing as dying before his first million dollars is in the bank.

Describe Method of Reasoning

Hudson counters the position held by Whittaker. He does this by presenting an analogous argument with an obviously false conclusion.

showing that a relevantly analogous argument leads to an untenable conclusion

The analogous argument is Hudson’s comparison between there being no such thing as medical students dropping out before their second year and no such thing as himself not becoming rich.

citing a specific example to counter Whittaker’s general claim

Hudson does not cite any specific example. His analogous argument is stated generally and theoretically.

pointing out that Whittaker mistakes a necessary situation for a possible situation

Hudson does not think that Whittaker’s conclusion is a possible situation. His analogous argument seeks to establish that Whittaker’s conclusion is absurd.

claiming that what Whittaker says cannot be true because Whittaker acts as if it were false

Hudson does not address Whittaker’s actions.

showing that Whittaker’s argument relies on analyzing an extreme and unrepresentative case

LSAT 106 – Section 2 – Question 04

LSAT 106 - Section 2 - Question 04

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 106 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Leave a Reply Cancel