LSAT 138 – Section 3 – Question 21

LSAT 138 - Section 3 - Question 21

December 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: 1:28

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 Q21
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Conditional Reasoning +CondR
A
51%
166
B
5%
160
C
1%
155
D
29%
162
E
13%
161
151
164
177
 +Hardest 147.528 +SubsectionMedium

Professor Riley characterized the university president’s speech as inflammatory and argued that it was therefore inappropriate. However, Riley has had a long-standing feud with the president, and so we should not conclude that her speech was inflammatory solely on the basis of Riley’s testimony. Therefore, unless there are independent reasons to deem the president’s speech inflammatory, it is not true that her speech was inappropriate.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Riley argues that the president’s speech was nflammatory, so therefore it’s inappropriate.

The author points out that Riley has had a feud with the president, so we shouldn’t believe that the speech was inflammatory merely because Riley says it was.

Thus, the author concludes that if we don’t have any independent reason to think the speech was inflammatory, the speech was not inappropriate.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that Riley’s long-standing feud with the president constitutes a reason we should not accept Riley’s claim that the speech was inflammatory as conclusive evidence that it was inflammatory.

The author also assumes that being inflammatory is the only way for the speech to have been inappropriate. In other words, the author’s overlooking the possibility that the speech could have been inappropriate even if it was not inflammatory.

A
takes for granted that the speech could not be inappropriate if it was not inflammatory
The author assumes that if the speech wasn’t inflammatory, then it wasn’t inappropriate. This overlooks the possibility that the speech could have been inappropriate for other reasons.
B
fails to adequately address the possibility that inflammatory speeches may be appropriate for some audiences
The author’s position is that we don’t have evidence the speech was inflammatory. So what’s possible in the event the speech was inflammatory doesn’t matter. The argument concerns what a non-inflammatory speech would imply.
C
favors the university president’s side in a dispute simply because of the president’s privileged standing
We don’t know what the president’s side in the dispute is, and we don’t know whether the author favors it. In addition, the author doesn’t rely on the president’s standing as support for the conclusion.
D
concludes that Riley’s claim is false merely on the grounds that Riley has something to gain if the claim is accepted as true
The author does point out that Riley has been in a feud with the president, but that doesn’t imply that Riley has anything to gain from people thinking the speech was inappropriate. So the author’s conclusion is not based on the idea that Riley has something to gain.
E
fails to adequately address the possibility that Riley’s animosity toward the university president is well founded
Whether Riley’s feelings about the president are justified is irrelevant. The issue is whether the president’s speech was inappropriate, and whether there are other ways for it to be inappropriate besides being inflammatory.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 138 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply