LSAT 147 – Section 1 – Question 13

LSAT 147 - Section 1 - Question 13

September 2016

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 0:48

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
PT147 S1 Q13
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Analogy +An
A
0%
140
B
6%
154
C
3%
154
D
7%
158
E
84%
163
136
145
155
 +Medium 147.09 +SubsectionMedium

Weingarten claims that keeping animals in zoos is unethical. He points out that it involves placing animals in unnatural environments merely for the sake of human amusement. However, since Weingarten sees nothing wrong with owning pets, and keeping pets surely involves placing an animal in an unnatural environment merely for human amusement, his claim should be rejected.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Weingarten argues that keeping animals in zoos is unethical, because it involves placing animals in unnatural environments just for humans’ amusement.

The author concludes that we should reject Weingarten’s claim that zoos are unethical. This is supported by the fact that Weingarten thinks owning pets is OK, and keeping pets involves placing animals in unnatural environments just for humans’ amusement.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The author thinks that pointing out a contradiction in Weingarten’s own beliefs constitutes a reason to reject Weingarten’s conclusion. But his conclusion — that zoos are unethical — can still be true, despite Weingarten having some beliefs that aren’t consistent with his own reasoning.

A
takes for granted that Weingarten owns one or more pets
The author doesn’t assume that Weingarten has pets. The premise concerns Weingarten’s opinion about owning pets and how this contradicts his own reasoning for believing that zoos are unethical.
B
inappropriately generalizes from a particular case
The author doesn’t argue that because Weingarten has one specific belief, he must have these other beliefs. Nor does the conclusion concern anyone else besides Weingarten. The reasoning attempts to point out an inconsistency in Weingarten’s views. That’s not generalizing.
C
misrepresents the conclusion of the opposing argument
The author does not misrepresent Weingarten’s claim that keeping animals in zoos is unethical. The author describes that claim accurately and doesn’t change the meaning of it.
D
takes a necessary condition for a practice’s being unethical as a sufficient condition for its being so
The argument isn’t based on conditional logic, so there’s no confusing of sufficient and necessary conditions. We don’t get anything that’s necessary in order to be unethical.
E
rejects a claim merely on the grounds that its proponent holds another view inconsistent with it
The author rejects Weingarten’s claim that zoo are unethical merely on the grounds that Weingarten believes that keeping pets is OK. Even though his view on pets is inconsistent with his view about zoos, that doesn’t constitute evidence that his conclusion is wrong.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 147 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply