LSAT 136 – Section 2 – Question 21
LSAT 136 - Section 2 - Question 21
June 2012You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.
Target time: 0:51
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PT136 S2 Q21 |
+LR
| Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw Part v. Whole +PvW | A
79%
165
B
14%
160
C
2%
154
D
4%
158
E
1%
153
|
138 149 160 |
+Medium | 146.855 +SubsectionMedium |
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the bridge renovation wasted taxpayers’ money. This is based on the fact that a commission reported that the Souther Tier Project was wasteful, and the bridge renovation was a part of that project.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that what applies to the whole (Souther Tier Project) must apply to a part(the bridge renovation). This overlooks the possibility that the bridge renovation might not have been a waste, even if the overall project was a waste. Perhaps the project was wasteful because of a different component besides the bridge renovation.
A
infers that a part has a certain quality merely on the grounds that the whole to which it belongs has that quality
The argument concudes that a part (bridge renovation) has a certain quality (waste of money) merely on the grounds that the whole to which it belongs (Southern Tier Project) has that quality.
B
draws a general conclusion about government waste on the basis of a single instance of such waste
The conclusion is not about government waste in general. It’s about the bridge renovation and whether that specific thing was wasteful.
C
attacks the mayor’s character rather than assessing the strength of the evidence supporting the mayor’s claim
The argument does not attack the character of the mayor. The evidence concerns the Southern Tier Project being a waste of money, and the fact that the bridge renovation was part of the project.
D
puts forward evidence that presupposes an important part of the claim that the argument attempts to support
(D) describes circular reasoning. No part of the evidence assumes the truth of that conclusion. The conclusion is that the bridge renovation was a waste of money; the evidence does not presuppose that this is true.
E
rejects a position on the grounds that the motives of the person who has advanced the position were not disinterested
The author does not comment on the motives of the mayor.
Take PrepTest
Review Results
LSAT PrepTest 136 Explanations
Section 1 - Reading Comprehension
- Passage 1 – Passage
- Passage 1 – Questions
- Passage 2 – Passage
- Passage 2 – Questions
- Passage 3 – Passage
- Passage 3 – Questions
- Passage 4 – Passage
- Passage 4 – Questions
Section 2 - Logical Reasoning
- Question 01
- Question 02
- Question 03
- Question 04
- Question 05
- Question 06
- Question 07
- Question 08
- Question 09
- Question 10
- Question 11
- Question 12
- Question 13
- Question 14
- Question 15
- Question 16
- Question 17
- Question 18
- Question 19
- Question 20
- Question 21
- Question 22
- Question 23
- Question 24
- Question 25
Section 3 - Reading Comprehension
- Passage 1 – Passage
- Passage 1 – Questions
- Passage 2 – Passage
- Passage 2 – Questions
- Passage 3 – Passage
- Passage 3 – Questions
- Passage 4 – Passage
- Passage 4 – Questions
Section 4 - Logical Reasoning
- Question 01
- Question 02
- Question 03
- Question 04
- Question 05
- Question 06
- Question 07
- Question 08
- Question 09
- Question 10
- Question 11
- Question 12
- Question 13
- Question 14
- Question 15
- Question 16
- Question 17
- Question 18
- Question 19
- Question 20
- Question 21
- Question 22
- Question 23
- Question 24
- Question 25
- Question 26
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment. You can get a free account here.