7Sage LSAT

Self-study
Group classes
Tutoring
Admissions consulting
Discussion & resources

Explanations

PT135.S4.Q8

SECTION 1 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25

SECTION 2 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25

SECTION 3 · rc

PASSAGE 1
Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7

PASSAGE 2
Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13

PASSAGE 3
Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19

PASSAGE 4
Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

SECTION 4 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

PrepTest 135 - Section 4 - Question 8

Question

Explanation

Analytics

Show analysis

Union member: Some members of our labor union are calling for an immediate strike. ███ █ ██████ █████ ███ ████ ███ ██████ ████ ███ █████ ██ ████████ ████ ██ █ █████ █████ ███████ ██ ██ ██████ █ █████ █████████ █████ ██████████ ██ ████ ███ ██████ ████

Argument Summary

Some members of the union want to strike now. The author pushes back: a strike would deplete the strike fund and trigger a steep fine, which adds up to a major financial loss. Therefore, no strike.

The author has done one half of a cost-benefit analysis. The cost half. The argument lists what would be lost from striking and never asks what might be gained.

COSTS (counted)

depleted strike fund

steep fine

= major financial loss

BENEFITS (ignored)

Flawed Cost-Benefit Analysis

The flaw is the missing half. A strike isn't an arbitrary act of self-harm; it's a tool. Workers strike to win things such as wage increases or better working conditions. Those potential benefits are exactly the kind of thing that would have to be weighed against the financial cost before you could conclude "we must not strike."

Substitute any other context. "I shouldn't go to the dentist because it costs money and hurts." True about the costs. But that ignores the benefit of, say, having healthy teeth. The financial loss from striking is real. But so is the upside the union members might achieve by striking.

Analysis by Kevin_Lin

Show answer

The union member's argument is ████ ██████████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ██

fails to consider ████ █ ██████ █████ █████ ███ █████ ██ ██████ █ █████████ ████ ████ ██ ██ ████ ████ ███████

This adds another piece to the cost side of the argument, not to the missing benefit side. The argument has already established that a strike would cause major financial loss; pointing out that the loss could happen for other reasons too just enlarges the cost side. The actual flaw is on the other end of the analysis. The author never accounts for what striking might gain.

fails to define ██████████ ████ ███████████ █ █████ █████████ ████

How big "major" is doesn't matter to the argument's structure. Whether the loss is $10,000 or $10 million, the argument still has the same flaw: it weighs cost without weighing benefit.

fails to consider ████ ███ ████████ ██ ██ ██████ ████ █ ██████ █████ ████████ ███ █████

This accurately describes the flaw. The author lists costs and concludes "must not strike," without ever asking what striking might gain. If the gains are big enough (wage increases, better working conditions), they could outweigh the financial loss, and the conclusion wouldn't follow.

takes for granted ████ ███ ████ █████████ ██████ ██ ███ █████ ███████ ██████████ ████████ ██ ███ ███████ █████████ ████████

The argument never claims financial strength is the most important factor in the union's bargaining position. It just claims a major financial loss is bad enough to rule out striking now. The argument could make sense without thinking financial strength is the most important factor; it just needs the financial loss to count as one cost worth taking seriously.

fails to establish ████ █████ ████ ██ █ ██████ ███████████ ██ ██████ ██ █ █████ ████

(E) treats the argument as if it were comparative: "don't strike now because we'll have a better chance later." That's not the argument. The author can reject striking now without taking any position on whether or when to strike later. Consider this analogous argument if you're still confused: "Don't eat that mushroom now; it's poisonous." That argument doesn't depend on the mushroom being safe to eat later. Maybe you shouldn't eat the mushroom in the future, too.

Difficulty

Question

89% of people who answer get this correct

This is a low-difficulty question.

CURVE

Score of students with a 50% chance of getting this right

25% 120

131

75% 148

Analysis

Question Stem Tags

Flaw or descriptive weakening

Stems that ask us to articulate a flaw in the stimulus' argument, either in abstract terms or by pointing out a weakness.

Learn more

Stimulus Tags

Weighing factors

Reasoning that involves considering or overlooking multiple factors pulling in different directions — whether causal forces with counteracting effects or costs and benefits of a decision — and determining how they balance out overall.

Learn more

Answer Popularity

Popularity Avg. score

151

153

89%

165

158

162

Question history

You don't have any history with this question.. yet!