Self-study
Helen: Conclusion It was wrong of my brother Mark to tell our mother that the reason he had missed her birthday party the evening before was that he had been in a traffic accident and that by the time he was released from the hospital emergency room the party was long over. ██████ █████████ ████ ██ █████ ███ █████ ██ █████ ████ ███████ ██████ ███ █████ ███ ████ ██ ████ ███████████████ ███ ██████ █████████ ███ █████ ███ ██████
Super-Rare Exception: Criticizing Valid Reasoning
This is a weird question. The LSAT (almost) never asks us to criticize a valid argument by questioning one of its premises. But that’s what happens here. Helen’s argument is perfectly valid – it’s just based on a ridiculous premise:
P1 (Ridiculous*): Saying false things is always morally wrong.
P2: [Mark’s big ol’ lie] was false.
________
Con: It was morally wrong of Mark to tell [this big ol’ lie].
*If you don’t see the silliness in Premise 1, note that it makes being honestly mistaken morally wrong. Like “Oops I said our meeting was tomorrow, but I misspoke – it’s actually the day after tomorrow. THEREFORE I AM BAD.”
Being in good LSAT shape means getting super weirded out when you find a seemingly valid argument in the stimulus of a Flaw question. Usually when that happens, you’re just missing something subtle. My take on a realistic mindset to bring into the answer choices is something like:
This argument probably does have a flaw somewhere that I’m just not seeing. But if it really is valid, I guess the absurd premise about how all false statements are morally wrong is a weak point.
Or you don't recognize any flaws or weaknesses up front, and you only accept the “absurd premise” flaw when none of the answer choices point out something you missed.
Analysis by MichaelWright
21.
The justification Helen offers for ███ ████████ ██ ██████ ████████ ██ ████ ██████████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ███ █████████████
a
ignores an important █████ ███████████ ███████ ██████ █████████ ████ ██ █████ ███ ███████ ██ ███ █████████ ████ ███ █████ ██ ██ ████
b
confuses having identified ███ █████ ██ █ █████ ██████ ████ ██████ ██████████ ███ ███████████ ██ █████ █████ ███ █████ ██████ ██ ████ ██████
c
judges behavior that ██ ███████ ██ ████████████ ███████ █████████ ██ █████ █████████ ████ ███ ████████ ██ ███████ ████ ██ ████████ ████ ██ ██████ ████ ███████
d
relies on an ████████████ ██████ ██ ████ ██ ███████ ███ ████ ████ ███ ██████████ ████ ███ █████████ ██████ ████ ███ ████████ ████████
e
attempts to justify █ ████████ █████ █ ██████████ ████ ██ ██████ █ ███████ █████████ ████ ██████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ██ ███████ ████ ████ ███ ██████████ ████████