LSAT 137 – Section 3 – Question 08

LSAT 137 - Section 3 - Question 08

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: 1:03

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 S3 Q08
+LR
+Exp
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Eliminating Options +ElimOpt
A
7%
156
B
0%
154
C
91%
164
D
0%
154
E
1%
155
128
138
149
 +Easier 146.416 +SubsectionMedium

Clark: Our local community theater often produces plays by critically acclaimed playwrights. In fact, the production director says that critical acclaim is one of the main factors considered in the selection of plays to perform. So, since my neighbor Michaela’s new play will be performed by the theater this season, she must be a critically acclaimed playwright.

Summarize Argument
Clark concludes that Michaela must be a critically acclaimed playwright because her play is being featured at a local theater that values critical acclaim and often performs plays by such people.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The problem with this argument is that Clark never establishes that every play performed by the theater is written by a critically acclaimed playwright. He would need to establish this in order to conclude that Michaela, by virtue of her work being performed there, is definitely critically acclaimed. Evidence that critical acclaim is one of the main factors considered by the theater is not enough to establish it as a necessary condition, since the theater may also perform many plays by writers without critical acclaim.

A
takes a condition necessary for a playwright’s being critically acclaimed to be a condition sufficient for a playwright’s being critically acclaimed
Clark doesn’t say that a playwright having their work performed by the theater is necessary for being critically acclaimed; he only mistakenly assumes that it’s sufficient to prove it.
B
fails to consider that several different effects may be produced by a single cause
The argument never mentions any cause-and-effect relationship. The flaw is assuming that someone’s work being performed by the theater is sufficient to prove that they’re critically acclaimed.
C
treats one main factor considered in the selection of plays to perform as though it were a condition that must be met in order for a play to be selected
This describes how Clark assumes that critical acclaim is a necessary condition for having one’s play performed at the theater. Since it’s not actually established as necessary, there could be many plays performed that aren’t critically acclaimed.
D
uses as evidence a source that there is reason to believe is unreliable
The only source Clark appeals to is the production director, and there’s no reason to believe that this source is unreliable.
E
provides no evidence that a playwright’s being critically acclaimed is the result rather than the cause of his or her plays being selected for production
Clark doesn’t claim that critical acclaim results from one’s play being chosen by the theater, so there’s no need to provide evidence for it.

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