LSAT 150 – Section 2 – Question 04

LSAT 150 - Section 2 - Question 04

June 2018

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 0:57

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
PT150 S2 Q04
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Analogy +An
A
95%
162
B
1%
151
C
1%
146
D
3%
155
E
2%
149
127
136
144
 +Easier 145.632 +SubsectionMedium

When politicians describe their opponents’ positions, they typically make those positions seem implausible and unattractive. In contrast, scholars try to make opposing positions seem as plausible and attractive as possible. Doing so makes their arguments against those positions more persuasive to their professional colleagues. Politicians should take note: they could persuade more voters with their arguments if they simply followed the scholars in charitably formulating their opponents’ positions.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author concludes that politicians could persuade more voters if they made their opponents’ positions seem plausible and attractive before arguing against them. As a premise, the author explains that scholars successfully utilize this method to make their positions more persuasive to their colleagues.

Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of utilizing an analogy that isn’t analogous enough, in which the author assumes that because two things are similar in one respect, they must be similar in another respect. Specifically, the author of this stimulus assumes that because politicians and scholars both try to convince others of their views, the methods that work for scholars will work well for politicians, too.

A
fails to address the possibility that an approach that works with one kind of audience will not work with another
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of utilizing an analogy that isn’t analogous enough. The author assumes that because politicians and scholars both try to convince others of their views, the methods that work for scholars will work well for politicians, too.
B
fails to account for the difficulty of coming up with charitable formulations of positions to which one is opposed
This isn’t relevant to the argument. Whether or not it’s difficult to come up with charitable positions, the author’s argument is that politicians should do so.
C
focuses on the differences between two styles of argumentation even though those styles might be suited to similar audiences
The politicians’ and scholars’ audiences are quite different—one is trying to appeal to voters and the other is targeting professional scholars—so it doesn’t matter if the different argumentation styles might be suited to similar audiences.
D
takes for granted that both scholars and politicians have persuasion as their aim
The author tells us in the argument’s context and premise that politicians and scholars attempt to persuade voters and colleagues. This is a fact the author provides as part of the foundation for the argument, not a flaw in the argument structure itself.
E
presumes, without giving justification, that politicians formulate the positions of their opponents uncharitably even when they share those positions
The author doesn’t say that politicians always paint their opponents’ positions as implausible, just that they “typically” do. We don’t know if she makes this presumption. Even if she did, it would be irrelevant to the conclusion that politicians should adopt scholars’ methods.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 150 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply