LSAT 147 – Section 4 – Question 17

LSAT 147 - Section 4 - Question 17

September 2016

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 0:59

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 S4 Q17
+LR
Main conclusion or main point +MC
A
93%
164
B
1%
146
C
2%
152
D
2%
154
E
3%
155
137
144
150
 +Medium 146.282 +SubsectionMedium

It is pointless to debate the truth of the law of noncontradiction, a fundamental logical principle according to which two statements that contradict each other cannot both be true. For a debate to be productive, participants must hold some basic principles in common. But the principles held in common in a debate over the law of noncontradiction would be much less certain than that law, so it matters little whether the law of noncontradiction can be defended on the basis of those principles.

Summarize Argument
The author states that there’s no point debating the truth of the law of noncontradiction, since a productive debate would require some agreement among the participants on basic principles. But since those common principles would be even less certain than the law of noncontradiction, it would be impossible to defend the law of noncontradiction using those principles.

Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is about the value of debating the law of noncontradiction: “It is pointless to debate the truth of the law of noncontradiction.”

A
It is pointless to debate the truth of the law of noncontradiction.
The author concludes that it’s pointless to debate the truth of the law of noncontradiction since a debate couldn’t be productive. The premises simply explain why this would be pointless.
B
Statements that contradict each other cannot both be true.
This is context about the law of noncontradiction. The rest of the author’s argument doesn’t support this statement.
C
The participants in a productive debate must hold at least some basic principles in common.
This is a premise that the author uses to demonstrate why debate would be pointless. Since the basic principles would be less certain than the law itself, no productive debate could ensue.
D
The law of noncontradiction is a principle that the participants in a productive debate must hold in common.
This doesn’t show up in the argument, and therefore can’t be the conclusion. This is a generalization about the law of noncontradiction that the author doesn’t make.
E
Any principles that could be used to defend the law of noncontradiction are less certain than it is.
This is a premise used to demonstrate the pointlessness of a debate about the truth of the law of noncontradiction. Since participants couldn’t adequately defend the principle with other shared principles, debate would be fruitless.

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