LSAT 127 – Section 2 – Question 11

LSAT 127 - Section 2 - Question 11

December 2003

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

Target time: 0:49

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
PT127 S2 Q11	+LR	Method of reasoning or descriptive +Method	A 3% 154 B 95% 165 C 1% 152 D 1% 152 E 0% 156	132 140 147	+Easier	146.61 +SubsectionMedium

Lance: If experience teaches us nothing else, it teaches us that every general rule has at least one exception.

Frank: What you conclude is itself a general rule. If we assume that it is true, then there is at least one general rule that has no exceptions. Therefore, you must withdraw your conclusion.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position

Frank concludes that Lance is wrong to claim that “every general rule has at least one exception.” This is because, according to Lance’s claim, Lance’s own general rule would need to have an exception. In other words, if Lance’s claim is true then not every general rule has at least one exception, in which case Lance’s claim cannot be true.

Describe Method of Reasoning

Frank counters Lance’s claim by pointing out that it is self-contradictory and cannot be logically true. As Frank points out, Lance’s general rule that “every general rule has at least one exception” entails that this rule itself must have at least one exception. If Lance’s rule has an exception, then logically, there must be some general rule with no exception, which would make Lance’s rule false.

demonstrating that Lance assumes the very thing he sets out to prove

Frank doesn’t demonstrate that Lance assumes the point that he is trying to prove. Instead, Frank demonstrates that Lance’s point is self-contradictory and therefore invalid.

showing that Lance’s conclusion involves him in a contradiction

Frank shows that Lance’s conclusion is self-contradictory, because in following the chain of inferences from Lance’s rule, one must end up breaking that rule.

showing that no general rule can have exceptions

Frank doesn’t claim that no general rule can have exceptions, only that Lance’s assertion that every general rule must have an exception is invalid.

establishing that experience teaches us the opposite of what Lance concludes

Frank doesn’t claim that the opposite of Lance’s conclusion is true, only that Lance’s conclusion is invalid. Frank also never talks about what experience teaches us.

showing that it has no implications for any real cases

Frank doesn’t bring up real cases in his argument. He only shows that Lance’s conclusion is logically contradictory.

LSAT 127 – Section 2 – Question 11

LSAT 127 - Section 2 - Question 11

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 127 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Leave a Reply Cancel