Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 29 - Section 4 - Question 18
October 24, 2015Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 107 - Section 4 - Question 18
October 24, 2015
A
The term “self-interest” is allowed to shift in meaning over the course of the argument.
The term “self-interest” is used in the same way at all points in the argument.
B
The argument takes evidence showing merely that its conclusion could be true to constitute evidence showing that the conclusion is in fact true.
This is exactly what the argument does. Just showing that altruistic actions could’ve been done out of self-interest doesn’t prove they were actually done out of self-interest.
C
The argument does not explain what is meant by “reward” and “personal benefit.”
The author doesn’t have to define these terms. He is just arguing that all actions are done out of self-interest.
D
The argument ignores the possibility that what is taken to be necessary for a certain interest to be a motivation actually suffices to show that that interest is a motivation.
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of mistaking a sufficient condition for a necessary condition, which doesn’t occur in this argument. The argument doesn’t rely on conditional reasoning, and no necessary or sufficient conditions are discussed.
E
The argument depends for its appeal only on the emotional content of the example cited.
The argument doesn’t appeal to emotions. It uses an example to illustrate how a seemingly altruistic action can be described in terms of self-interest.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 29 - Section 4 - Question 17
October 24, 2015Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 107 - Section 4 - Question 17
October 24, 2015Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 29 - Section 4 - Question 14
October 24, 2015Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 107 - Section 4 - Question 14
October 24, 2015Supervisor: I agree with your overall conclusion, but disagree about one point you make, since the latest closed furnaces are extremely fuel-efficient.
A
The overall conclusion is about a net effect but is based solely on evidence about only some of the factors that contribute to the effect.
The plant manager’s argument is vulnerable to this criticism. Just because adopting the new process would have some costly aspects, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the new process would bring the company no profit.
B
The support for the overall conclusion is the authority of the plant manager rather than any independently verifiable evidence.
The plant manager never cites his authority as support for his conclusion. He cites the costs associated with adopting the new process.
C
The overall conclusion reached merely repeats the evidence offered.
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of circular reasoning. The plant manager doesn’t make this mistake. Instead, the plant manager overlooks the possibility that the financial benefits of the new process could outweigh the cost and bring the company a profit.
D
Evidence that is taken to be only probably true is used as the basis for a claim that something is definitely true.
The author doesn’t cite any probably true evidence. He only cites definitely true facts, but those facts aren’t sufficient to prove his conclusion.
E
Facts that are not directly relevant to the argument are treated as if they supported the overall conclusion.
The fact about the sulfur dioxide output of the plant is the only fact the plant manager mentions that isn’t directly relevant to the overall conclusion of the argument, but that fact isn’t treated as if it supports the overall conclusion.