LSAT 133 – Section 3 – Question 14

LSAT 133 - Section 3 - Question 14

June 2011

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

Ask a tutor

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
PT133 S3 Q14
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Lack of Support v. False Conclusion +LSvFC
A
20%
160
B
79%
164
C
0%
153
D
0%
151
E
0%
152
121
140
158
 +Easier 147.69 +SubsectionMedium

Council member: I recommend that the abandoned shoe factory be used as a municipal emergency shelter. Some council members assert that the courthouse would be a better shelter site, but they have provided no evidence of this. Thus, the shoe factory would be a better shelter site.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The council member concludes that the shoe factory would be a better emergency shelter site, compared the courthouse, which other council members proposed. Why? Because no evidence has been provided to show that the courthouse would be a better shelter.

Identify and Describe Flaw
This is a cookie-cutter lack of support vs. false conclusion flaw. Just because there isn’t enough support to confirm a certain conclusion, that doesn’t mean that conclusion must be wrong. The courthouse hasn’t been well-defended by opposing council members as a better shelter than the shoe factory, but that doesn’t mean it might not actually be a better shelter.

A
asserting that a lack of evidence against a view is proof that the view is correct
The council member actually does the opposite: assuming that a lack of evidence for a view is proof that the view is incorrect.
B
accepting a claim simply because advocates of an opposing claim have not adequately defended their view
The council member accepts the claim that the shoe factory would be a better shelter, because advocates of the courthouse haven’t defended their choice. But a lack of support for the courthouse doesn’t necessarily make the shoe factory a better shelter in reality.
C
attacking the proponents of the courthouse rather than addressing their argument
The council member doesn’t attack the proponents of the courthouse, or say anything at all about their character.
D
attempting to persuade its audience by appealing to their fear
The council member doesn’t appeal to the emotions of the audience, and certainly doesn’t make any appeal to fear.
E
attacking an argument that is not held by any actual council member
The council member counters a view that is held by at least some council members: the view that the courthouse would be a better shelter site.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 133 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply