LSAT 135 – Section 4 – Question 26

LSAT 135 - Section 4 - Question 26

December 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: 1:18

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
PT135 S4 Q26
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Causal Reasoning +CausR
Part v. Whole +PvW
A
2%
157
B
15%
163
C
17%
162
D
11%
159
E
56%
167
152
163
173
 +Hardest 147.853 +SubsectionMedium

Because our club recruited the best volleyball players in the city, we will have the best team in the city. Moreover, since the best team in the city will be the team most likely to win the city championship, our club will almost certainly be city champions this year.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that our club will almost certainly be city champions this year. This is based on the following:

Premise: Our club recruited the best volleyball players in the city.

Sub-conclusion: We will have the best team in the city.

Premise: The best team in the city will be the team most likely to win the championship.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The author commits the part-to-whole fallacy in assuming that because the club has the best volleyplayers, the team will be the best.

The author also assumes that being the team with the best chance of winning the championship implies that the chance is near certainty. This overlooks that the team’s chance of winning could still be very low, even if that chance is better than the chances of each other team.

A
presumes, without presenting relevant evidence, that an entity can be distinguished as the best only on the basis of competition
The author does not assume that the “best” can be determined only based on competition. Notice that the premise says certain players are the “best,” but doesn’t say we had to see them in competition to make this determination.
B
predicts the success of an entity on the basis of features that are not relevant to the quality of that entity
Having the best players on your team is certainly relevant to the quality of the team. Although it doesn’t guarantee that the team will be the best, that doesn’t mean this feature is irrelevant.
C
predicts the outcome of a competition merely on the basis of a comparison between the parties in that competition
There’s nothing flawed about predicting an outcome based on comparing the parties in that competition. Although the author reaches his prediction in a flawed way, that doesn’t mean the act of predicting based on a comparison is flawed.
D
presumes, without providing warrant, that if an entity is the best among its competitors, then each individual part of that entity must also be the best
One of the premises asserts that the club recruited the best players (individual parts of the team). This is a fact we accept as true. So the author doesn’t assume that these players are the best. The author uses this fact to conclude that the team is the best.
E
concludes that because an event is the most likely of a set of possible events, that event is more likely to occur than not
(E) captures the author’s assumption that because the team has the best chance of winning, it will almost certainly win. The author overlooks that the team’s chance of winning might still be under 50%, even if that chance is higher than the chance of each other team winning.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 135 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply