LSAT 111 – Section 3 – Question 02

LSAT 111 - Section 3 - Question 02

October 2001

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 0:52

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
PT111 S3 Q02
+LR
+Exp
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
A
3%
158
B
1%
158
C
1%
159
D
1%
159
E
94%
166
124
135
146
 +Easier 147.206 +SubsectionMedium

J.Y.’s explanation

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

Raymond Burr played the role of lawyer Perry Mason on television. Burr’s death in 1993 prompted a prominent lawyer to say “Although not a lawyer, Mr. Burr strove for such authenticity that we feel as if we lost one of our own.” This comment from a prestigious attorney provides appalling evidence that, in the face of television, even some legal professionals are losing their ability to distinguish fiction from reality.

Summarize Argument

The author concludes that even some legal professionals cannot tell fiction from reality because of television. As evidence, she provides a quote from an attorney following the death of an actor who played a lawyer on TV: “Although not a lawyer, Mr. Burr strove for such authenticity that we feel as if we lost one of our own.”

Identify and Describe Flaw

The author’s reasoning is flawed because her evidence contradicts her conclusion. She concludes that some lawyers can’t tell reality from fiction, but her example shows a lawyer who can. The lawyer she quotes says that the actor felt like “one of our own,” even though the actor was not a lawyer. This shows that the lawyer could in fact tell reality from fiction.

A
takes the views of one lawyer to represent the views of all lawyers

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of “hasty generalization.” But the author concludes that some legal professionals can’t distinguish fiction from reality, not that all legal professionals can’t.

B
criticizes the lawyer rather than the lawyer’s statement

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of “attacking the source,” but the author doesn’t make this mistake. She simply draws a conclusion about the lawyer based on the lawyer’s statement. She isn’t making an unwarranted attack on the lawyer.

C
presumes that the lawyer is qualified to evaluate the performance of an actor

The author never addresses whether the lawyer is qualified to evaluate the actor’s performance. She just argues that the lawyer thinks that the actor was a real lawyer. Whether or not he was a good actor is irrelevant.

D
focuses on a famous actor’s portrayal of a lawyer rather than on the usual way in which lawyers are portrayed on television

“The usual way in which lawyers are portrayed” on TV is irrelevant to the author’s argument. She’s just claiming that one lawyer’s comment about one actor’s portrayal shows that some legal professionals can’t distinguish reality from fiction.

E
ignores the part of the lawyer’s remark that indicates an awareness of the difference between reality and fiction

In his comment about the actor, the lawyer explicitly says, “Although not a lawyer...,” showing that the lawyer can distinguish reality from fiction. The author ignores this when she concludes that, based on this quote, some lawyers cannot distinguish reality from fiction.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 111 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply