LSAT 150 – Section 2 – Question 20

LSAT 150 - Section 2 - Question 20

June 2018

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:40

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 Q20
+LR
Must be true +MBT
Conditional Reasoning +CondR
A
74%
163
B
14%
158
C
2%
156
D
3%
157
E
7%
157
137
149
161
 +Medium 145.632 +SubsectionMedium

A philosophical paradox is a particularly baffling sort of argument. Your intuitions tell you that the conclusion of a philosophical paradox is false, but they also tell you that its conclusion follows logically from true premises. Solving a philosophical paradox requires accepting any one of three things: that its conclusion is true, that at least one of its premises is not true, or that its conclusion does not really follow logically from its premises.

Summary
Philosophical paradoxes are particularly baffling arguments. On one hand your intuitions tell you the conclusion of the paradox is false, but on the other hand they also tell you that its conclusion follows logically from true premises. Solving a philosophical paradox requires accepting any one of three things: that its conclusion is true, that at least one of its premises is not true, or that its conclusion does not really follow logically from its premises.

Notable Valid Inferences
Solving a philosophical paradox requires denying one or the other of your intuitions.

A
Solving a philosophical paradox requires accepting something that intuitively seems to be incorrect.
Must be true. The stimulus tells us that solving a paradox requires accepting one of three things. Accepting any of these three things contradicts either sense of intuition described in the second sentence.
B
The conclusion of a philosophical paradox cannot be false if all the paradox’s premises are true.
Could be false. The stimulus tells us that one of the three things we could accept when solving a paradox is that its conclusion does not really follow logically from its premises.
C
Philosophical paradoxes with one or two premises are more baffling than those with several premises.
Could be false. We don’t have any information in the stimulus that tells us which types of paradoxes are more baffling than others. The stimulus introduces philosophical paradoxes as baffling in a matter-of-fact way, not in a comparative way.
D
Any two people who attempt to solve a philosophical paradox will probably use two different approaches.
Could be false. We don’t have any information in the stimulus about people who attempt to solve these paradoxes. It is possible that two people could use identical approaches.
E
If it is not possible to accept that the conclusion of a particular philosophical paradox is true, then it is not possible to solve that paradox.
Could be false. The stimulus gives us three options to accept in order to solve a philosophical paradox. It is possible for a person to solve a paradox by accepting either of the other two options instead.

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