LSAT 6 – Section 3 – Question 23
LSAT 6 - Section 3 - Question 23
October 1992You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.
Target time: 0:59
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PT6 S3 Q23 |
+LR
| Method of reasoning or descriptive +Method | A
0%
166
B
15%
161
C
2%
154
D
60%
166
E
23%
160
|
149 160 170 |
+Hardest | 147.049 +SubsectionMedium |
This is a Method of Reasoning question, and we know this because of the question stem: “Judith’s reply to Anthony’s argument relies on which one of the following argumentative strategies?”
Anthony claims that using marijuana “definitely leads,” or causes, people to use heroin. His evidence is that the two tend to happen together, meaning they are correlated. He is jumping from correlation in his premise to causation in his conclusion. Our girl, Judith totally picks up on this. She’s saying this could be true, the statistics, which is his premise/evidence, does not support the causal conclusion. She then cites another correlation between water consumption and heroin use, which would lead to a berserk argument: based on Anthony’s argument for things being correlated with heroin use causes heroin use, water consumption causes heroin use. Here, she’s employing an analogy to reveal how the argument is flawed. She concludes that Anthony’s conclusion isn’t necessarily supported by his evidence/premise. Her evidence/premise is an analogy she puts forward to point out the issue in his reasoning.
Answer Choice (A) Judith never contests the factual accuracy of the statistics that Anthony offers. They could be completely accurate, but they do not support his causal conclusion.
Answer Choice (B) Judith is not undermining the credibility of his conclusion - if her first sentence, she even concedes that Anthony’s conclusion could be true. She specifically takes issue with the way he supports his conclusion.
Answer Choice (C) The example Judith cites is not promoting heroin usage; she is saying that drawing a correlation between X thing and heroin and then saying thing X causes or promotes heroin use is not true.
Correct Answer Choice (D) Judith is not questioning the premise or the conclusion, she’s simply questioning the support, or rather, the line of reasoning, between the two. By putting forward that analogy, she is showing how his line of reasoning is flawed.
Answer Choice (E) This is not good - the possibility of ever establishing a causal connection? That’s too extreme.
Take PrepTest
Review Results
LSAT PrepTest 6 Explanations
Section 1 - Reading Comprehension
- Passage 1 – Passage
- Passage 1 – Questions
- Passage 2 – Passage
- Passage 2 – Questions
- Passage 3 – Passage
- Passage 3 – Questions
- Passage 4 – Passage
- Passage 4 – Questions
Section 2 - Logical Reasoning
- Question 01
- Question 02
- Question 03
- Question 04
- Question 05
- Question 06
- Question 07
- Question 08
- Question 09
- Question 10
- Question 11
- Question 12
- Question 13
- Question 14
- Question 15
- Question 16
- Question 17
- Question 18
- Question 19
- Question 20
- Question 21
- Question 22
- Question 23
- Question 24
- Question 25
Section 3 - Logical Reasoning
- Question 01
- Question 02
- Question 03
- Question 04
- Question 05
- Question 06
- Question 07
- Question 08
- Question 09
- Question 10
- Question 11
- Question 12
- Question 13
- Question 14
- Question 15
- Question 16
- Question 18
- Question 19
- Question 20
- Question 21
- Question 22
- Question 23
- Question 24
- Question 25
- Question 26
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment. You can get a free account here.