LSAT 151 – Section 4 – Question 23

LSAT 151 - Section 4 - Question 23

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: 1:15

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 S4 Q23
+LR
+Exp
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Conditional Reasoning +CondR
A
10%
158
B
75%
164
C
4%
160
D
5%
153
E
6%
159
142
151
161
 +Medium 145.196 +SubsectionEasier

If a piece of legislation is the result of negotiation and compromise between competing interest groups, it will not satisfy any of those groups. So, we can see that the recently enacted trade agreement represents a series of compromises among the various interest groups that are concerned with it, because all of those groups are clearly unhappy with it.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the trade agreement is the result of compromises between competing interest groups. He supports this with the following premises:
(1) If legislation is the result of negotiation and compromises between competing interest groups, it will not satisfy any of those groups.
(2) All the groups involved in the trade agreement are unhappy— or unsatisfied— with it.

Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing necessary and sufficient conditions. The author treats “compromises” as necessary for “unsatisfied,” but according to his premises, “compromises” is part of the sufficient condition.

In other words, it’s possible that the trade agreement was not the result of compromises, even though all of the interest groups were unsatisfied with it.

A
It draws a conclusion that is merely a disguised restatement of one of its premises.
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of circular reasoning. The author doesn’t make this mistake. His premises may not support his conclusion well, but they are distinct from his conclusion.
B
It concludes that a condition is necessary for a certain result merely from the claim that the condition leads to that result.
The author concludes that “compromises” is necessary for “unsatisfied,” merely from the claim that compromises lead to interest groups being unsatisfied. But it’s possible that the trade agreement is not the result of compromises, even though its interest groups are unsatisfied.
C
It relies on understanding a key term in a quite different way in the conclusion from the way that term is understood in the premises.
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of equivocation. The author doesn't use the same key term in different ways. He does assume that “unhappy” interest groups are also “unsatisfied,” but this is reasonable in the context of his argument.
D
It takes for granted that no piece of legislation can ever satisfy all competing interest groups.
The author doesn’t assume that no legislation can satisfy all interest groups. Instead, he mistakenly assumes that if a piece of legislation does not satisfy all interest groups, then it must be the result of compromises.
E
It bases a conclusion about a particular case on a general principle that concerns a different kind of case.
The author doesn't make this mistake. He bases a conclusion about a piece of legislation on premises that are also about a piece of legislation.

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