Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 48 - Section 1 - Question 17
April 21, 2012Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 121 - Section 1 - Question 17
April 21, 2012
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that there are no endangered species of ants. Why? Because insects in general are so successful that they spread into virtually every ecosystem, and ants are the most successful insect.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing part v. whole. The author observes that the biological family of ants is successful, and concludes that every individual ant species must be successful.
But some qualities can be true of a whole without being true of every part, or vice versa. Ants in general could be very successful, but some species of ants could still be endangered.
But some qualities can be true of a whole without being true of every part, or vice versa. Ants in general could be very successful, but some species of ants could still be endangered.
A
the Arctic Circle and Tierra del Fuego do not constitute geographically isolated areas
The author doesn’t presume that either is isolated; they’re used to demonstrate wide geographic range (extreme north vs. extreme south).
B
because ants do not inhabit only a small niche in a geographically isolated area, they are unlike most other insects
The author says that insects are definitely not the kind of animals limited to small niches, so this can’t be the flaw.
C
the only way a class of animal can avoid being threatened is to spread into virtually every ecosystem
This goes beyond what the argument states. The author says that two options for animal species are to go extinct or spread into virtually every ecosystem. He doesn’t indicate that those are the only two options.
D
what is true of the constituent elements of a whole is also true of the whole
This is the reverse of the author does. He attributes a property true of a whole (ants as a family) to each of its individual parts (individual species of ants).
E
what is true of a whole is also true of its constituent elements
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing parts with the whole. The author assumes that, because ants as a whole are successful, every ant species must be as well. However, even if ants are generally successful, individual ant species could be endangered.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 47 - Section 3 - Question 17
April 21, 2012Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 120 - Section 3 - Question 17
April 21, 2012Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 47 - Section 1 - Question 17
April 21, 2012Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 120 - Section 1 - Question 17
April 21, 2012Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 46 - Section 3 - Question 17
April 21, 2012Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 119 - Section 3 - Question 17
April 21, 2012Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 46 - Section 2 - Question 17
April 21, 2012Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 119 - Section 2 - Question 17
April 21, 2012Analyst: The statistics are welcome news, but they do not provide strong evidence that the new laws caused the drop in crime. Many comparable areas that lack such legislation have reported a similar drop in the crime rate during the same period.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The analyst concludes that the decrease in crime in areas covered by new, stricter punishment laws does not constitute strong evidence that those laws caused the decrease in crime. The analyst supports this conclusion with a comparison to areas that have experienced a similar decrease in crime, but without similar laws.
Describe Method of Reasoning
The analyst counters the legislator’s cause-and-effect argument by pointing out comparable cases that have shown the same “effect” but that have not experienced the proposed “cause.” This suggests that there is some alternative explanation that has given rise to the effect.
A
pointing out that the legislator has provided no evidence of the reliability of the statistics on which the legislator’s conclusion is based
The analyst doesn’t call the reliability or truth of the statistics into question, only arguing that they do not necessarily support the legislator’s conclusion.
B
arguing that the legislator has unreasonably concluded that one event has caused another without ruling out the possibility that both events are effects of a common cause
The analyst doesn’t argue that the reduction in crime and the introduction of stricter laws are caused by the same thing. The analyst instead points out that the laws simply may not be the cause of the reduction in crime.
C
objecting that the statistics on which the legislator is basing his conclusion are drawn from a time period that is too short to yield a meaningful data sample
The analyst doesn’t object to the statistics in any way and accepts the decrease in crime as real.
D
claiming that the legislator has attempted to establish a particular conclusion because doing so is in the legislator’s self-interest rather than because of any genuine concern for the truth of the matter
The analyst doesn’t address the legislator’s motivation for making the argument, only arguing against the content of the argument itself.
E
implying that the legislator has drawn a conclusion about cause and effect without considering how often the alleged effect has occurred in the absence of the alleged cause
The analyst points to cases where the same effect has occurred (a decrease in crime) but that have not been subject to the legislator’s assumed cause (the stricter laws). This is used to suggest that the cause-and-effect conclusion drawn by the legislator is unjustified.