LSAT 150 – Section 3 – Question 05

LSAT 150 - Section 3 - Question 05

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: 0:50

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 S3 Q05
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Link Assumption +LinkA
A
7%
155
B
0%
145
C
2%
154
D
0%
142
E
90%
163
134
142
150
 +Medium 148.057 +SubsectionMedium

Pundit: Clearly, the two major political parties in this city have become sharply divided on the issues. In the last four elections, for example, the parties were separated by less than 1 percent of the vote.

Summarize Argument
The pundit concludes that the two major political parties in the city have become sharply divided on issues. He supports this by noting that in the last four elections, the parties were separated by less than 1% of the vote.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The pundit concludes that the parties are sharply divided simply because they were separated by less than 1% of the vote in recent elections. He assumes that a close vote indicates a sharp division but doesn’t provide evidence for this. It's possible that the close vote actually shows that the two parties have very similar views and are united.

A
confuses the cause of the sharp division with an effect of the sharp division
The pundit actually doesn’t address any causes or effects of the sharp division, so he can’t be confusing the two. Instead, he simply argues that the close vote is evidence of a sharp division.
B
presumes, without argument, that sharp division is a bad thing
The pundit assumes that a close vote is evidence of sharp division, but he never claims or assumes that sharp division is a bad thing.
C
has a conclusion that is merely a restatement of one of its premises
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of circular reasoning. The pundit doesn’t make this mistake. His premise doesn’t support his conclusion very well, but the two are distinct from one another.
D
fails to indicate how what is happening in one city compares with what is happening in other cities
The pundit is only addressing the two major political parties “in this city.” How the elections in this city compare to the elections in other cities is irrelevant.
E
takes for granted that an almost even division in votes indicates a sharp division on issues
The pundit assumes that a close vote indicates a sharp division on issues, but he gives no evidence to support this assumption. It’s possible that an almost even division in votes actually indicates that the two parties are united.

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