LSAT 111 – Section 4 – Question 07

LSAT 111 - Section 4 - Question 07

October 2001

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

Target time: 0:59

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 S4 Q07	+LR	Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw Link Assumption +LinkA Lack of Support v. False Conclusion +LSvFC	A 4% 160 B 2% 165 C 72% 166 D 0% 155 E 23% 162	128 147 167	+Medium	144.86 +SubsectionEasier

J.Y.’s explanation

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

Attorney: I ask you to find Mr. Smith guilty of assaulting Mr. Jackson. Regrettably, there were no eyewitnesses to the crime, but Mr. Smith has a violent character: Ms. Lopez testified earlier that Mr. Smith, shouting loudly, had threatened her. Smith never refuted this testimony.

Summarize Argument

The attorney concludes that Mr. Smith should be found guilty of assaulting Mr. Jackson. She supports this by saying that Ms. Lopez testified that Mr. Smith loudly threatened her and he never refuted her testimony, so Mr. Smith has a violent character.

Identify and Describe Flaw

The attorney makes many unwarranted assumptions in her argument. She assumes that just because Smith loudly threatened Lopez, he must have a violent character, and that just because he has a violent character, he’s guilty of assaulting Jackson.

She also assumes that just because Smith never refuted Lopez’s claim that he threatened her, her claim must be true.

Note the questions stem: “The attorney’s argument is fallacious because it reasons that ____.” The correct answer will fill in this blank with an assumption made by the attorney.

aggressive behavior is not a sure indicator of a violent character

The attorney does not reason that aggressive behavior is not a sure indicator of a violent character. Instead, she assumes that Smith’s aggressive behavior (his alleged loud threat) is a sure indicator of his violent character.

Smith’s testimony is unreliable since he is loud and aggressive

The attorney doesn’t bring up any of Smith’s testimony at all, nor does she assume that it’s unreliable.

since Smith never disproved the claim that he threatened Lopez, he did in fact threaten her

This points out one of the attorney’s fallacious assumptions. She assumes that, because Smith didn’t refute Lopez’s claim, her claim must be true. She uses this to argue that Smith has a violent character and thus committed the crime.

Lopez’s testimony is reliable since she is neither loud nor aggressive

The attorney supports Lopez’s testimony by saying that it was never refuted. She doesn’t assume that Lopez’s testimony is reliable because Lopez isn’t loud or aggressive.

having a violent character is not necessarily associated with the commission of violent crimes

The question stem asks for an answer in terms of what the argument reasons. In contrast to (E), “the attorney’s argument is fallacious because it reasons that” having a violent character is necessarily associated with the commission of violent crimes.

LSAT 111 – Section 4 – Question 07

LSAT 111 - Section 4 - Question 07

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

J.Y.’s explanation

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 111 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Leave a Reply Cancel