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

Target time: 1:55

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 ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView
Choices
Curve Question
Difficulty
Psg/Game/S
Difficulty
Explanation
PT66 S2 Q24
+LR
Parallel flawed method of reasoning +PF
A
9%
162
B
6%
159
C
69%
166
D
5%
157
E
12%
160
146
156
166
+Harder 146.855 +SubsectionMedium

Here's what the NOT flawed version of the stimulus would look like.

(Premise) sound theories AND successful implementation --> lower inflation rate
(Premise) [not] lower inflation rate
___________
(Good conclusion) [not] sound theories AND successful implementation
(Good conclusion with the negation distributed via De Morgan's) not sound theories OR not successful implementation

(Bad conclusion in the stimulus) not sound theories

The argument is flawed because it could be that the theories were fine, just that we sucked at implementing them.

In its abstract form, the flawed argument looks like this:

N and W --> R
/R
___________
/N

(C) matches this form perfectly.

(E) is an attractive wrong answer choice. It's mostly wrong because its logical form does not match:

N --> W and R
/R
___________
/N'

The argument for (E) being better than (C) is that (E) matches the other "mistake" in the argument.

The stimulus argument assumes that "sound" theories = "not far off the mark" theories. True, it does. But, I don't think it's wrong to assume that a "sound" theory is one that's "not far off the mark". At least it's far more reasonable an assumption than what (E) has us assume: N = N' or "equipment worth the investment" = "equipment better than old".

(C) on the other hand, assumes that "succeed in selling" = "not fail to sell". Isn't that closer to "sound" theories = "not far off the mark" theories?