Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 22 - Section 4 - Question 03
October 24, 2015Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 109 - Section 4 - Question 03
October 24, 2015John: I think you are wrong to use that criterion. A great writer does not need any diversity in subject matter; however, a great writer must at least have the ability to explore a particular theme deeply.
Speaker 1 Summary
Muriel concludes that Favilla isn’t a great writer. This is because Favilla’s subject matter isn’t varied enough.
Speaker 2 Summary
John asserts that having varied subject matter isn’t a requirement for being a great writer. He proposes a different requirement - the ability to explore a particular theme deeply. John’s implicit point is that we can’t conclude that Favilla is not a great writer even if her subject matter isn’t varied.
Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement. The speakers disagree about whether great writers must write about subject matter with enough variety.
A
whether Favilla has treated a wide variety of subjects in her novels
John doesn’t express an opinion. He doesn’t say anything about Favilla’s writing.
B
whether Favilla should be considered a great writer because her style is distinctive
If John has an opinion, it agrees with Muriel. Since he thinks exploring a theme deeply is a requirement to be great, no writers, including Favilla, are great simply because they have a distinctive style. Muriel also believes Favilla is not great even if she has a distinctive style.
C
whether treating a variety of subjects should be a prerequisite for someone to be considered a great writer
This is a point of disagreement. Muriel thinks Favilla isn’t great because she doesn’t have subject matter that’s varied enough. John thinks variety of subject matter is not necessary to be great.
D
whether the number of novels that a novelist has written should be a factor in judging whether that novelist is great
Neither expresses an opinion about this. Nobody mentions the number of novels a novelist has written and whether this is a factor assessing a novelist’s greatness.
E
whether there are many novelists who are considered to be great but do not deserve to be so considered
Neither express an opinion about this. Muriel does say that Favilla doesn’t deserve to be considered great, but she doesn’t say that Favilla is currently considered great.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 22 - Section 4 - Question 01
October 24, 2015Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 109 - Section 4 - Question 01
October 24, 2015
A
It draws a general conclusion from cases selected only on the basis of having a characteristic that favors that conclusion.
The advertisement commits this error. On the basis of a select group of people who own Sturdimades that have lasted long, the advertisement draws a general conclusion that Sturdimades can be relied upon to drive for long distances.
B
Its conclusion merely restates the evidence given to support it.
This is the cookie-cutter “circular reasoning” flaw, where an argument cites its conclusion as evidence that its conclusion is true. The advertisement doesn’t commit this flaw.
C
It fails to clarify in which of two possible ways an ambiguous term is being used in the premises.
The “long distance” club is for Sturdimade owners who’ve driven Sturdimades for over 100,000 miles. When “long distance” is used in the conclusion, it’s understood that it’s referring to the number of miles a Sturdimade lasts, just as “long distance” was used earlier in the ad.
D
The evidence given to support the conclusion actually undermines that conclusion.
None of the advertisement’s premises go against what’s stated in the conclusion.
E
It treats popular opinion as if it constituted conclusive evidence for a claim.
The advertisement doesn’t cite popular opinion as proof that Sturdimades can be relied upon to drive for long distances. The advertisement cites hundreds of owners who have Sturdimades that have lasted for a high number of miles.