LSAT 119 – Section 3 – Question 13

LSAT 119 - Section 3 - Question 13

June 2005

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:08

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
PT119 S3 Q13
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
A
5%
156
B
6%
155
C
0%
152
D
1%
152
E
88%
165
137
145
153
 +Medium 145.195 +SubsectionEasier

It is characteristic of great artists generally, and of great writers in particular, to have a discerning view of the basic social and political arrangements of the society in which they live. Therefore, the greater a writer one is, the more astute one will be in perceiving the basic social and political arrangements of one’s society.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that, the better one is at writing, the better one will be at observing social and political arrangements. His reasoning is that great writers tend to have a good understanding of such arrangements.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The author’s reasoning is flawed, because his only support is that great writers have at least a certain threshold of observational skill. That doesn’t tell us that variation in observation skill beyond that is directly tied to variation in writing skill.
An analogous argument would be: “All great writers sleep at least 4 hours at night. Therefore, the better you are at writing, the more hours per night you sleep.”

A
It assumes, without providing justification, that members of a group that is part of a larger group possess all of the characteristics possessed by members of the larger group.
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing a part with the whole. It’s not applicable here, because the author doesn’t erroneously switch between a larger and a smaller group.
B
It assumes, without providing justification, that because something is sometimes the case it must always be the case.
The author’s failure isn’t that he erroneously expands a correlation beyond what he established. It’s that he doesn’t establish a direct correlation between discernment and writing skill in the first place.
C
It assumes, without providing justification, that those artists with political insight do not have insight into matters outside of politics.
This can’t be the flaw, because the author’s argument never suggests that artists lack insight outside of politics.
D
It assumes, without providing justification, that only great individuals can make discerning criticisms of their societies.
This reverses what the argument is saying. The author claims that greatness leads to discerning criticism, not that discerning criticism requires greatness to be made. Also, the argument is about writers specifically, not great individuals generically.
E
It assumes, without providing justification, that because people who have one quality tend to have a second quality, those who have more of the first quality will have more of the second.
The author assumes that, because people who are great at writing are discerning critics, the better you are at writing, the better you’ll be at criticism. But we only know that great writers have reached a threshold, not that there’s generally a direct correlation.

The question stem reads: Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the reasoning above? This is a Flaw question.

The stimulus begins by claiming that "it is a characteristic of great artists generally, and of great writers in particular, to have a discerning view of the basic social and political arrangements of the society in which they live." That was a mouthful. "It" refers to the ability to discern the social and political arrangements of society. Let's reorganize this sentence to read:"Having a discerning view of the basic social and political arrangments of society is a characteristic of great artists generally and great writers in particular.

I have italicized the "and" to highlight the sentence structure of one subject and two predicates. The subject is the ability to discern social and political arrangements in society. The predicates can be broken down to 1.) is a characteristic of great artists generally and 2.) is a characteristic of great writers in particular. Let us do away with predicate 1 and only focus on predicate 2. Now we get:

"The ability to discern society's social and political arrangements is a characteristic of great writers."

The argument then concludes that the greater the writer you are, the greater your ability to perceive your society's social and political arrangements.

The stimulus has claimed that being a great writer is sufficient to perceive society. The argument concluded that as you increase the sufficient condition (greatness in writing), you will see an increase in the necessary condition (ability to perceive society). This is flawed reasoning. Do you know what else being a great writer is sufficient for? Having two eyeballs. Using the stimulus' reasoning, the greater the writer you are, the more eyeballs you will have. You see where I am going here? That is our flaw. The stimulus assumes that more of a sufficient condition means more of a necessary condition. Let's go to the answer choices.

Answer Choice (A) is not what we are looking for. (A) is the fallacy of division: assuming what is true of the whole must be true for some or all of its parts. (A) would look better if the argument said: "Great artists generally have the ability to discern society; therefore, great writers have the ability to discern society.

Answer Choice (B) is incorrect. (B) would look better if the argument went: great writers sometimes have the ability to discern society. Therefore all great writers have the ability to discern society.

Answer Choice (C) is incorrect. The argument makes no mention of what writers or artists do not have the ability to discern.

Answer Choice (D) is not what the argument does. First, the argument is not concerned with great individuals, only great writers. Second, the argument does not make a sufficient vs. necessary error. (D) would look better if the argument went: "Great writers have the ability to discern society. Therefore only great writers have the ability to discern society.

Correct Answer Choice (E) is what we discussed.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 119 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply