LSAT 112 – Section 1 – Question 10

LSAT 112 - Section 1 - Question 10

December 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: 1:04

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
PT112 S1 Q10
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
A
13%
156
B
8%
153
C
69%
162
D
0%
136
E
10%
150
141
151
160
 +Medium 147.196 +SubsectionMedium

J.Y.’s explanation

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

Cotrell is, at best, able to write magazine articles of average quality. The most compelling pieces of evidence for this are those few of the numerous articles submitted by Cotrell that are superior, since Cotrell, who is incapable of writing an article that is better than average, must obviously have plagiarized superior ones.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that Cotrell can only write average quality magazine articles. She supports this by saying that any superior articles by Cotrell must be plagiarized, because Cotrell can only write average quality articles.

Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of circular reasoning, where the author’s conclusion is simply a restatement of a premise. In this case, the author concludes that Cotrell can only write average quality articles based on the premise that his superior articles must be plagiarized because he can only write average quality articles.

A
It simply ignores the existence of potential counterevidence.
The author actually discusses potential counterevidence: Cotrell’s few superior articles. She dismisses this evidence by saying that the articles must have been plagiarized, but she doesn’t ignore the existence of counterevidence.
B
It generalizes from atypical occurrences.
The author doesn’t generalize from atypical occurrences. Instead, she draws a specific conclusion about Cotrell based on all of Cotrell’s articles— the superior ones and the average ones.
C
It presupposes what it seeks to establish.
The author seeks to establish that Cotrell can only write average quality articles. In order to do so, she presupposes that he can only write average quality articles.
D
It relies on the judgment of experts in a matter to which their expertise is irrelevant.
The author never mentions or relies on the judgement of any experts.
E
It infers limits on ability from a few isolated lapses in performance.
The author does infer limits on Cotrell’s writing ability. But she does so based on his average work and the claim that his superior work was plagiarized, not based on “a few isolated lapses in performance.”

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 112 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply