LSAT 107 – Section 3 – Question 24
LSAT 107 - Section 3 - Question 24
October 1999You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.
Target time: 1:01
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PT107 S3 Q24 |
+LR
+Exp
| Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw Eliminating Options +ElimOpt | A
24%
163
B
2%
157
C
59%
168
D
13%
166
E
3%
161
|
150 162 175 |
+Hardest | 148.579 +SubsectionMedium |
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that either Ms. Chan or her colleague must not be telling the truth. Ms. Chan said that she retired from Quad Cities corporation. Her colleague said that Ms. Chan will be gone for much of next year on business trips and is working harder than she has ever worked before. To the author, what the colleague describes about Ms. Chan does not sound like “retirement.”
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author interprets “retired from Quad Cities Corporation” as if it means Ms. Chan retired from working generally. But this overlooks the reasonable possibility that it simply means retired from working at that specific company. If this is what the phrase means, then both Ms. Chan and her colleague could be telling the truth.
A
is based in part on hearsay
The author does not argue that something is true because he heard someone say that it is true. Rather, the author mistakenly believes what each person said is contradictory.
B
criticizes Ms. Chan rather than the claims she made
The author does not attack Ms. Chan’s background, character, or behavior. He simply believes what she said contradicts what her colleague said about her.
C
draws a conclusion based on equivocal language
The author’s conclusion is based in part on the the language “retired from Quad Cities Corporation.” The author thinks this means Ms. Chan retired from working completely. But this language is equivocal because it could also mean that she retired only from that specific company.
D
fails to consider that Ms. Chan’s colleague may have been deceived by her
There’s no indication that what the colleague said was based on what Ms. Chan said to the colleague. In any case, even if Ms. Chan lied to the colleague, that doesn’t undermine the conclusion that Ms. Chan or the colleague must not be telling the truth.
E
fails to infer that Ms. Chan must be a person of superior character, given her long loyal service
There’s no reason the author should have concluded that Ms. Chan is of superior character. The failure to make this inference does not help show why both Ms. Chan and her colleague might be telling the truth.
Take PrepTest
Review Results
LSAT PrepTest 107 Explanations
Section 1 - Logical Reasoning
- Question 01
- Question 02
- Question 03
- Question 04
- Question 05
- Question 06
- Question 07
- Question 08
- Question 09
- Question 10
- Question 11
- Question 12
- Question 13
- Question 14
- Question 15
- Question 16
- Question 17
- Question 18
- Question 19
- Question 20
- Question 21
- Question 22
- Question 23
- Question 24
- Question 25
Section 2 - Reading Comprehension
- Passage 1 – Passage
- Passage 1 – Questions
- Passage 2 – Passage
- Passage 2 – Questions
- Passage 3 – Passage
- Passage 3 – Questions
- Passage 4 – Passage
- Passage 4 – Questions
Section 3 - Logical Reasoning
- Question 01
- Question 02
- Question 03
- Question 04
- Question 05
- Question 06
- Question 07
- Question 08
- Question 09
- Question 10
- Question 11
- Question 12
- Question 13
- Question 14
- Question 15
- Question 16
- Question 17
- Question 18
- Question 19
- Question 20
- Question 21
- Question 22
- Question 23
- Question 24
- Question 25
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment. You can get a free account here.