LSAT 108 – Section 2 – Question 22

LSAT 108 - Section 2 - Question 22

February 2000

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

Target time: 2:18

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
PT108 S2 Q22
+LR
Argument part +AP
A
35%
166
B
4%
158
C
38%
169
D
21%
163
E
3%
161
160
173
180
 +Hardest 145.001 +SubsectionEasier

One can be at home and be in the backyard, that is, not in one’s house at all. One can also be in one’s house but not at home, if one owns the house but rents it out to others, for example. So one’s being at home is not required for one’s being in one’s own house.

Summarize Argument
The author claims that “one’s being at home is not required for one’s being in one’s own house.” To back up this claim, we are offered an example: if you visit a house that you own but rent to someone else, you can be in your house but not at home (because it’s someone else’s home).

Identify Argument Part
The claim that one can be at home without being at one’s house doesn’t actually form part of the argument. Instead, it’s a piece of context that introduces the substance of the argument. Because the conclusion only focuses on being in one’s house without being at home, being at home without being at one’s house is ultimately irrelevant to the conclusion.

A
The claim is required to establish the conclusion.
The claim about being at home without being in your house doesn’t actually support the conclusion at all, because the conclusion is just about being in your house without being at home. That means it can’t be essential for the conclusion.
B
The claim represents the point the conclusion is intended to refute.
The author never states a point that the conclusion is meant to refute; the argument isn’t aimed against anything.
C
The claim is compatible with the truth or falsity of the conclusion.
This accurately describes the claim about being at home without being in your house. True or false, it doesn’t affect the conclusion, which is just about being in your house without being at home. If you removed this claim from the stimulus, it wouldn’t change anything.
D
The claim points out an ambiguity in the phrase “at home.”
The author never claims that the phrase “at home” is ambiguous. The argument is meant to establish an unexpected relationship between being at home and being in your house, which is possible because each of those concepts is clear.
E
The claim inadvertently contradicts the conclusion.
The claim about being at home without being in your house doesn’t contradict the conclusion at all. It’s entirely possible for both statements to be true; neither interferes with the other.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 108 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply