LSAT 139 – Section 4 – Question 15

LSAT 139 - Section 4 - Question 15

June 2013

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:14

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
PT139 S4 Q15
+LR
Weaken +Weak
A
5%
162
B
7%
160
C
7%
160
D
81%
165
E
0%
149
126
142
158
 +Medium 148.326 +SubsectionMedium

Video of JY doing this

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

Linguist: You philosophers say that we linguists do not have a deep understanding of language, but you have provided no evidence.

Philosopher: Well, you have said that you believe that “Joan and Ivan are siblings” is identical in meaning to “Ivan and Joan are siblings.” But this cannot be the case, for the sentences are physically different; yet for two things to be identical, they must have all the same attributes.

Summarize Argument

The philosopher concludes that it cannot be the case that the sentences “Joan and Ivan are siblings” and “Ivan and Joan are siblings” are identical in meaning. He supports this by saying that two things must have all the same attributes in order to be identical, yet these two sentences are physically different from one another.

Notable Assumptions

The philosopher assumes that two things being identical in meaning is equivalent to those two things being physically identical. His argument uses both meanings of the term “identical” interchangeably, overlooking the possibility that they might mean different things.

A
Two things can have a few minor differences and still be identical.

We don’t know exactly what it means for two things to “have a few minor differences,” or whether the two sentences in question can be considered to have a few minor differences. Either way, (A) fails to point out the philosopher’s ambiguous use of the word “identical.”

B
Two sentences can be identical physically, and yet, depending on the context in which they are uttered, not be identical in meaning.

This may be true, but the two sentences in question are not physically identical and the linguist argues that they are identical in meaning. So (B) doesn’t apply in the context of these two sentences.

C
It is necessarily true that Joan is Ivan’s sibling if Ivan is Joan’s sibling.

This may be true, but it doesn’t point out the weakness in the philosopher’s argument, which is that he equates “physically identical” with “identical in meaning.”

D
The issue is not whether the two sentences are completely identical, but whether they mean the same thing.

This weakens the philosopher’s argument by pointing out his assumption that two things being “identical in meaning” is the same as two things being “physically identical.” (D) argues that the two sentences can be identical in meaning without being completely physically identical.

E
A linguist has more experience with language than a philosopher, and so is in a better position to answer such questions.

The philosopher is not making a claim about who has more experience with language. Instead, his argument is about the identicalness of the two sentences in question.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 139 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply