LSAT 136 – Section 2 – Question 25

LSAT 136 - Section 2 - Question 25

June 2012

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:33

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 Q25
+LR
Method of reasoning or descriptive +Method
A
3%
157
B
3%
156
C
12%
159
D
10%
158
E
72%
166
150
157
164
 +Harder 146.855 +SubsectionMedium

When a group is unable to reach a consensus, group members are often accused of being stubborn, bull-headed, or unyielding. Such epithets often seem abusive, are difficult to prove, and rarely help the group reach a resolution. Those who wish to make such an accusation stick, however, should choose “unyielding,” because one can always appeal to the fact that the accused has not yielded; obviously if one acknowledges that a person has not yielded, then one cannot deny that the person is unyielding, at least on this issue.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that, to make an accusation stick, one should use the word "unyielding" when accusing a group member in a group that can’t reach a consensus. She supports this by saying that you can always point out that the accused member hasn’t yielded. If the member admits this, he can’t deny being unyielding, at least on this issue.

Describe Method of Reasoning
The author supports the use of the word “unyielding” as an effective accusation against a group member when a group can’t reach a consensus. She does this by showing that, if the accused member accepts the argument’s premise (that he hasn’t yielded on the issue at hand), then he is unable to deny the conclusion (that he is “unyielding”).

A
rejecting a tactic on the grounds that it constitutes an attack on the character of a person and has no substance in fact
The author doesn’t reject a tactic, she advocates for one.
B
rejecting a tactic on the grounds that the tactic makes it virtually impossible for the group to reach a consensus on the issue in question
Like (A), the author advocates for a tactic, she doesn’t reject a tactic. She does note that this tactic “rarely help[s]” the group to reach a consensus, but she doesn’t claim that it makes it “virtually impossible.”
C
conditionally advocating a tactic on the grounds that it results in an accusation that is less offensive than the alternatives
She does conditionally advocate a tactic, but she doesn’t do so on the grounds that it is a less offensive accusation than the alternatives. She just argues that it’s a more effective accusation.
D
conditionally advocating a tactic on the grounds that it results in an argument that would help the group to reach a consensus on the issue in question
She does conditionally advocate a tactic that results in an argument, but she doesn’t claim that it would help the group reach a consensus on the issue in question. Instead, she suggests it would lead to a consensus that the accused person is indeed "unyielding."
E
conditionally advocating a tactic on the grounds that it results in an argument for which one could not consistently accept the premise but deny the conclusion
The author conditionally advocates for using the word "unyielding" to accuse a group member on the grounds that it results in an argument where one can't accept the premise (that they haven't yielded on the issue) but deny the conclusion (that they are "unyielding").

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 136 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply