LSAT 106 – Section 3 – Question 02

LSAT 106 - Section 3 - Question 02

June 1999

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

Ask a tutor

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 S3 Q02
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Part v. Whole +PvW
Value Judgment +ValJudg
A
7%
164
B
5%
162
C
1%
170
D
2%
160
E
85%
168
129
143
158
 +Medium 148.198 +SubsectionMedium

A number of Grandville’s wealthiest citizens have been criminals. So, since it is of utmost importance that the Grandville Planning Committee be composed solely of individuals whose personal standards of ethics are beyond reproach, no wealthy person should be appointed to that committee.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that no wealthy person should be on the Grandville Planning Committee because some wealthy Grandville citizens have been criminals, and the committee must only include people with unquestionable personal ethics.

Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of hasty generalization, where The author makes a broad generalization about an entire group based on evidence about only some members of that group. He assumes that, just because some wealthy Grandville citizens have been criminals, no wealthy person should be on the committee.

A
confuses a result with something that is sufficient for bringing about that result
The author simply doesn’t make this mistake. He never addresses the result of appointing wealthy people or criminals to the committee at all.
B
mistakes a temporal relationship for a causal relationship
The author doesn't do this. His argument doesn't address a temporal or a causal relationship between anything. That is, he doesn’t say what caused some wealthy people to be criminals or what might happen if they are appointed to the committee.
C
assumes that because a certain action has a certain result the person taking that action intended that result
Like (A), the author never addresses the results of appointing wealthy people or criminals to the committee at all. He also never mentions anyone’s intentions.
D
judges only by subjective standards something that can be readily evaluated according to objective standards
The claim that some wealthy citizens are criminals is objective. However, the claims about who should be appointed to the committee are somewhat subjective; they can’t readily be evaluated objectively. So, the author doesn’t make this mistake.
E
generalizes on the basis of what could be exceptional cases
The author broadly generalizes about all wealthy Grandville citizens based on evidence about only some of them. Those wealthy Grandville citizens who are criminals could be exceptional cases; that is, there may be only a few of them.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 106 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply