LSAT 155 – Section 2 – Question 08

LSAT 155 - Section 2 - Question 08

November 2019

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 0:48

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
PT155 S2 Q08
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Conditional Reasoning +CondR
A
5%
151
B
5%
150
C
3%
151
D
87%
161
E
0%
145
135
142
150
 +Medium 145.934 +SubsectionMedium

If a garden does not receive plenty of water and sunlight and is not planted in rich soil, then it will not be productive. Patricia has located her garden in an area that is ideal for receiving water and sunlight, and has made sure the soil is rich by adding fertilizer and compost. Hence, Patricia’s garden will be productive.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that Patricia’s garden will be productive. This is based on the fact that if a garden doesn’t have lots of water and sunlight, and isn’t planted in rich soil, it won’t be productive. However, Patricia’s garden will have lots of water and sunlight and will have rich soil.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The author confuses sufficient and necessary conditions. We know that having lots of sunlight and water, and rich soil are necessary for a garden to be productive. But this doesn’t imply that possessing these qualities is sufficient to make a garden productive. A garden might still be unproductive even if it has lots of water and sunlight and rich soil.

A
fails to specify adequately the meaning in context of the term “ideal”
The failure to specify the exact meaning of “ideal” is not what makes the argument flawed. “Ideal” has its own meaning, and we can simply interpret the word using its dictionary definition.
B
infers a cause from a correlation
The argument does not assume correlation proves cause. There is no causal relationship being concluded or assumed. The author simply believes Patricia’s garden will be productive because it has certain necessary conditions for being productive.
C
confuses a cause with its effect
There is no causal relationship being concluded or assumed. The author simply believes Patricia’s garden will be productive because it has certain necessary conditions for being productive.
D
takes a set of necessary conditions as sufficient
The first premise establishes that water, sunlight, and rich soil are necessary for a garden to be productive. But the author mistakenly thinks those qualities are sufficient to guarantee that a garden will be productive.
E
relies on a sample that is unlikely to be representative
The author doesn’t rely on a sample. We get a premise about Patricia’s garden, and the conclusion is about that same garden.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 155 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply