7Sage LSAT

Discussion & resources

Discussion Free LSAT resources Free law school admissions resources Independent tutors

Self-study
Group courses
Tutoring
Admissions consulting
Discussion & resources

Explanations

PT149.S1.Q16

SECTION 1 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25

SECTION 2 · rc

PASSAGE 1
Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5

PASSAGE 2
Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12

PASSAGE 3
Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20

PASSAGE 4
Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

SECTION 3 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

SECTION 4 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25

PrepTest 149 - Section 1 - Question 16

Question

Explanation

Analytics

Show analysis

Fremont: Simpson is not a viable candidate for chief executive of Pod Oil because he has no background in the oil industry.

████████ █ █████████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████████ ██ ██ █████████ ██ ████████ ████ ██ ███████ ████ ███ █████ ████ █████ ██████████ ███ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████████ ███ ███████ ███ ███████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ███████████

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position

Galindo argues that Simpson’s lack of experience in the oil industry doesn’t disqualify him as a chief executive candidate. He offers two premises:

(1) Having a background in the oil industry doesn’t guarantee success.

(2) The last chief executive was unsuccessful despite their background in the oil industry.

Identify and Describe Flaw

This is the flaw of mistaking sufficiency for necessity. Fremont argues that having oil industry experience is a necessary condition for being a successful chief executive. Instead of arguing against this claim, Galindo argues that having an oil industry background isn’t a sufficient condition for a chief executive to be successful. Fremont never claimed that an oil background was sufficient, though—he just said it was necessary. Galindo doesn’t address Fremont’s actual argument, so his disagreement with Fremont is unsupported.

Analysis by HollyShulman

Show answer

16.

Galindo’s argument is flawed in ████ ██

fails to justify ███ ███████████ ████ █████████ █████████ ██ █████ ██ ████████ ████

Galindo does not presume that Fremont’s objection is based on personal bias, so no such justification would be necessary.

fails to distinguish ███████ ████████ ██████████ ███ ██████████ ██████████

It isn’t necessary for Galindo to distinguish between relevant and irrelevant experience, because both Fremont and Galindo limit their arguments to discussions of relevant experience (a background in the oil industry).

rests on a █████████ ███████ ███████ ██ █████████ ██ █████████ ███ ███████ ███ ███████ ████ █████████ ██ ██████████ ███ ███████

This is the cookie-cutter flaw in Galindo’s argument. Fremont argues that an oil industry background is necessary for success; Galindo counters that such a background is not sufficient to ensure success. Galindo mistakes Fremont’s necessary condition for a sufficient condition.

bases a conclusion ████ ██ █████████ ██ ██████ ██████████ ██ ███████ ██ ████████ ████ ██ ██ █████████ ██████████ ██ ███████

Galindo does not conclude that an oil industry background is always irrelevant to success. He states that such a background does not necessarily guarantee success, but he doesn’t suggest that oil industry experience is always irrelevant to success.

presents only one ████████ ██ █ ██████████ ██ ███ █████ ███ █ █████ ██████████████ █████ ████ ██████████

Galindo’s example successfully proves that an oil industry background doesn’t guarantee success, so the efficacy of his example or the fact that he only offers one isn’t a flaw. Rather, the flaw is that the claim his example proves does not actually respond to Fremont’s argument.

Difficulty

Question

58% of people who answer get this correct

This is a difficult question.

CURVE

Score of students with a 50% chance of getting this right

25% 146

157

75% 169

Analysis

Question Stem Tags

Flaw or descriptive weakening

Stimulus Tags

Conditional reasoning

Confusing sufficiency and necessity

Misdirected response

Answer Popularity

Popularity Avg. score

145

151

58%

164

14%

158

27%

157

Question history

You don't have any history with this question.. yet!