LSAT 151 – Section 3 – Question 24

LSAT 151 - Section 3 - Question 24

September 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: 1:14

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
PT151 S3 Q24
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Sampling +Smpl
Math +Math
A
16%
159
B
49%
165
C
4%
158
D
6%
155
E
26%
157
154
162
169
 +Hardest 146.292 +SubsectionMedium

A recent poll of a large number of households found that 47 percent of those with a cat had at least one person with a university degree, while 38 percent of households with a dog had at least one person with a university degree. Clearly, people who hold university degrees are more likely to live in a household with a cat than one with a dog.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that people who have university degrees are more likely to live in a household with a cat than a household with a dog. This is based on the following poll results:

47% of households with a cat had at least one person with a university degree.

38% of households with a dog had at least one person with a university degree.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The author overlooks the possibility that the number of houses with dogs is significantly higher than the number of houses with cats, such that 38% of dog-houses might be a greater number than 47% of cat-houses. And if this is the case, a person with a university degree might be more likely to be part of a dog-house than a cat-house.

A
ignores the possibility that a significant number of households might have both a cat and a dog
This possibility doesn’t hurt the argument, because we have statistics about households with cats and households with dogs. Households that have both would simply be counted as both a household with a cat and a household with a dog. These households are not excluded.
B
takes for granted that there are not significantly more households with a dog than ones with a cat
This describes an assumption of the argument, because if there were significantly more households with a dog than ones with a cat, that opens the possibility 38% of the dog-houses is a greater number than 47% of the cat-houses.
C
fails to consider how many of the households have at least one person without a university degree
The argument concerns only people who have university degrees. What proportion have houses with at least one person without a university degree has no bearing on the argument.
D
fails to consider to what extent people with university degrees participate in decisions about whether their households have a cat or dog
The argument concerns the likelihood that someone with a university degree is to live in a household with a cat vs. a household with a dog. Who makes decisions on pets in these households has no bearing on the argument.
E
ignores the possibility that two things can be correlated without being causally connected
The argument does not assert any causal relationship. The author doesn’t say that having a degree causes one to get a cat or a dog or vice versa. So the possibilty that things can be correlated without being causally connected has no impact on the argument.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 151 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply