LSAT 137 – Section 2 – Question 09

LSAT 137 - Section 2 - Question 09

October 2012

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 0:52

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
PT137 S2 Q09
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Conditional Reasoning +CondR
A
1%
149
B
88%
164
C
3%
157
D
8%
156
E
1%
152
138
146
154
 +Medium 146.731 +SubsectionMedium

To use the pool at City Gym, one must have a membership there. Sarah has a membership at City Gym. She must therefore use the pool there at least occasionally.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that Sarah uses the pool at City Gym. This is based on the fact that in order to use the pool at the gym, one must have a membership, and Sarah has a membership.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The author confuses a necessary condition for using the pool (having a membership) with a sufficient condition. Although Sarah meets the necessary condition because she has a membership, that doesn’t imply that she must use the pool.

A
mistakes a policy that is strictly enforced for a policy to which exceptions are made
The argument doesn’t rely on any purported exceptions to the policy that membership is required in order to use the pool.
B
treats a statement whose truth is required for the conclusion to be true as though it were a statement whose truth ensures that the conclusion is true
Sarah’s membership is required for her to use the pool. But this does not ensure that she uses the pool.
C
presumes that one or the other of two alternatives must be the case without establishing that no other alternative is possible
The argument’s reasoning doesn’t rely on presenting two alternatives.
D
concludes that a person has a certain attribute simply because that person belongs to a group most of whose members have that attribute
The argument doesn’t go from whole to part. The premise doesn’t assert that there’s a group that uses the pool.
E
draws a conclusion that merely restates a claim presented in support of that conclusion
(E) describes circular reasoning. The argument’s conclusion doesn’t restate a premise.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 137 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply