LSAT 140 – Section 2 – Question 11

LSAT 140 - Section 2 - Question 11

December 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: 0:55

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
PT140 S2 Q11
+LR
+Exp
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Sampling +Smpl
A
3%
154
B
7%
157
C
88%
165
D
0%
152
E
2%
153
138
146
154
 +Medium 149.441 +SubsectionMedium

A science class stored one selection of various fruits at 30 degrees Celsius, a similar selection in similar conditions at 20 degrees, and another similar selection in similar conditions at 10 degrees. Because the fruits stored at 20 degrees stayed fresh longer than those stored at 30 degrees, and those stored at 10 degrees stayed fresh longest, the class concluded that the cooler the temperature at which these varieties of fruits are stored, the longer they will stay fresh.

Summarize Argument

The class concludes that the colder the storage conditions for these fruits, the longer they will stay fresh. They support this with an experiment in which similar fruits were stored at 30, 20, and 10 degrees in similar conditions. The fruits at 20 degrees lasted longer than those at 30 degrees, and the ones at 10 degrees stayed fresh the longest.

Identify and Describe Flaw

The class’s reasoning is flawed because they draw a broad conclusion based on a small range of temperatures (10-30 degrees). They assume that colder storage always keeps the fruits fresh for longer, ignoring the possibility that there could be temperatures that are too cold. In other words, just because the fruits lasted longer at 10 degrees than at 30 doesn’t mean they’ll last longer at 0 degrees.

A
generalized too readily from the fruits it tested to fruits it did not test

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of hasty generalization. The class doesn't make a generalization about fruits that they did not test. Instead, they draw a conclusion about “these varieties of fruits,” meaning the fruits that they did test.

B
ignored the effects of other factors such as humidity and sunlight on the rate of spoilage

The class doesn’t mention other factors, but it doesn’t need to because the experiment controlled for them. By keeping the other conditions similar for each selection of fruits, the class tested the effect of temperature.

C
too readily extrapolated from a narrow range of temperatures to the entire range of temperatures

The experiment showed that within the narrow range of 10-30 degrees, colder storage keeps the fruits fresh longer. They then apply this to all temperatures, assuming that colder storage always works, without considering that some temperatures might be too cold.

D
assumed without proof that its thermometer was reliable

The class never mentions a thermometer at all. Even if they did, we have no reason to believe that the thermometer might be unreliable. The flaw in the class’s argument has to do with how they apply their experiment’s findings, not with their thermometer.

E
neglected to offer any explanation for the results it discovered

The class concludes that colder storage helps the fruits last longer; they don't need to explain why. Even if they did explain why, this wouldn’t fix the fact that they apply their results too broadly.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 140 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply