LSAT 131 – Section 2 – Question 06

LSAT 131 - Section 2 - Question 06

December 2009

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

Target time: 0:48

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
PT131 S2 Q06	+LR	Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw Lack of Support v. False Conclusion +LSvFC	A 0% 148 B 2% 159 C 95% 164 D 1% 159 E 2% 153	123 133 144	+Easiest	147.936 +SubsectionMedium

Although Jaaks is a respected historian, her negative review of Yancey’s new book on the history of coastal fisheries in the region rests on a mistake. Jaaks’s review argues that the book inaccurately portrays the lives of fishery workers. However, Yancey used the same research methods in this book as in her other histories, which have been very popular. This book is also very popular in local bookstores.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position

The author concludes that Jaaks’ negative review of Yancey’s new book is mistaken. He supports this by saying that Jaaks claims the book misrepresents fishery workers, but Yancey used the same research methods in this book as in her other books. He also notes that Yancey’s new book and her previous books are all very popular.

Identify and Describe Flaw

The author makes two key assumptions in his argument.

(1) He assumes that since Yancey used the same research methods in this book as in her previous books, she must not be misrepresenting fishery workers. He ignores the possibility that Yancey might just use bad research methods in all her books.

(2) He also assumes that because Yancey’s books are popular, they’re also factually accurate. However, a book’s popularity is not necessarily a reflection of its accuracy.

relies on the word of a scholar who is unqualified in the area in question

The author’s argument doesn't rely on the word of a scholar at all. He’s arguing against Jaaks, who is a scholar, but he doesn’t rely on any other scholar to support his argument.

attacks the person making the claim at issue rather than addressing the claim

This is the cookie-cutter “ad hominem” flaw, where an author attacks the source of an argument rather than the argument itself. The author doesn't make this mistake. He attacks Jaaks’ argument, not Jaaks herself.

takes for granted that the popularity of a book is evidence of its accuracy

The author assumes that because Yancey’s books are all popular, her books and research methods must be accurate. But a book’s popularity does not necessarily reflect its factual accuracy.

bases a general conclusion on a sample that is likely to be unrepresentative

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of hasty generalization. The author doesn't make this mistake. He draws a specific conclusion about Jaak’s review.

presumes, without providing justification, that the methods used by Yancey are the only methods that would produce accurate results

The author assumes that Yancey’s methods produce accurate results, but he never assumes that hers are the only methods that would produce accurate results.

LSAT 131 – Section 2 – Question 06

LSAT 131 - Section 2 - Question 06

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 131 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Leave a Reply Cancel