LSAT 138 – Section 3 – Question 05

LSAT 138 - Section 3 - Question 05

December 2012

You 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
PT138 S3 Q05	+LR	Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw Value Judgment +ValJudg	A 92% 165 B 3% 157 C 1% 156 D 1% 157 E 3% 159	123 135 147	+Easier	147.528 +SubsectionMedium

Editorialist: Many professional musicians claim that unauthorized music-sharing services, which allow listeners to obtain music for free, rob musicians of royalties. While it is true that musicians are deprived of royalties they deserve, music-sharing services are not to blame since record companies, publishers, managers, and other intermediaries take an inequitably large cut of the revenues from music sales.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position

The editorialist claims that unauthorized music-sharing services are not responsible for depriving musicians of their deserved earnings because other parties also take a cut of the musicians’ earnings.

Identify and Describe Flaw

The argument is flawed because it only shows that other parties (record companies, publishers, managers, etc.) are also responsible for taking money from musicians, but never actually absolves unauthorized sharing services of blame. It’s still entirely possible that these sharing services, like the other parties mentioned, are robbing musicians.

concludes that one party is not blameworthy merely because another party is blameworthy

This describes how the argument fails to prove that sharing services are not responsible for taking musicians’ earnings, but instead only provides evidence that others are responsible as well.

attempts to promote a particular behavior simply by showing that many people engage in that behavior

The argument does not attempt to promote any behavior; it only claims that these sharing services are not responsible for taking musicians’ earnings.

attacks a position based solely on the character of the people who hold that position

The argument never makes a personal attack on the character of the professional musicians in question. It mistakenly points to other guilty parties in an attempt to absolve music-sharing services of responsibility.

tries to show that a position is false simply by pointing out an undesirable consequence of holding that position

The argument does not point to any consequence of believing that music-sharing services rob musicians of royalties; it only claims that those services are not to blame.

treats a necessary condition for blameworthiness as though it were a sufficient condition for blameworthiness

The argument does not establish any requirement for being blameworthy. Further, the argument claims that what these services do is not sufficient to consider them blameworthy.

LSAT 138 – Section 3 – Question 05

LSAT 138 - Section 3 - Question 05

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

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 138 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Leave a Reply Cancel