- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8950
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Sun Feb 21, 2016 12:00 am
#35333
Complete Question Explanation
Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (A)
In this dialogue, Brooks says that he’s ambivalent about quitting his job, even though it makes him
unhappy, because he’s not sure whether the risks associated with leaving his current position are
justified by the move. Morgenstern says that the risk lies in the prospect of not finding another job,
which would also make Brooks unhappy. Since Brooks is already unhappy, Morgenstern asserts, he
should go ahead and quit:
being slightly unhappy in one’s job, for example, might be much, much better than being unhappy in
one’s unemployment.
The stimulus is, as you might have predicted, followed by a Flaw in the Reasoning question, so
the correct answer choice will describe the problem with Morgenstern’s questionable argument as
discussed above.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. Morgenstern equates two very different
states of unhappiness, appearing to see no difference between being unhappy in a job and being
“pretty unhappy” in unemployment.
Answer choice (B): This choice describes circular reasoning, the flawed argumentation that begins
by presuming the conclusion to be true. Although Morgenstern’s reasoning is not circular, many test
takers found this choice appealing. In a circular argument, the premise and conclusion are logically
equivalent, and that is not the case here. Rather, Morgenstern thinks that both states of unhappiness
discussed are equivalent.
Answer choice (C): This answer choice describes a “straw man” argument, in which someone
deliberately mischaracterizes a point in order to more easily refute it. In this case, however,
Morgenstern has not mischaracterized Brooks’ words, but instead has responded with a flawed
argument.
Answer choice (D): Morgenstern has not conflated two different types of risk; only one risk is
discussed. The issue here is that Morgenstern has equated two different types of unhappiness,
drawing the questionable conclusion that there is no risk in quitting. In LSAT language, this might be
referred to as “equivocation with respect to the central concept of unhappiness.”
Answer choice (E): The flaw in Morgenstern’s argument is not that he has drawn an unjustified
generalization on the basis of a single case; rather, the flaw in the reasoning is that Morgenstern’s
advice is based on a faulty presumption: that both types of unhappiness—that of having a job that is
unsatisfactory, and that of being unable to find another job—are equivalent, and suggesting that there
is not much risk involved in trading one for the other.
Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (A)
In this dialogue, Brooks says that he’s ambivalent about quitting his job, even though it makes him
unhappy, because he’s not sure whether the risks associated with leaving his current position are
justified by the move. Morgenstern says that the risk lies in the prospect of not finding another job,
which would also make Brooks unhappy. Since Brooks is already unhappy, Morgenstern asserts, he
should go ahead and quit:
- Brooks: I’m not happy with my job, but I’m not sure quitting would be worth the risk.
Morgenstern: The risk is that you won’t find another job, which would make you unhappy.
You are unhappy anyway, so you should quit.
being slightly unhappy in one’s job, for example, might be much, much better than being unhappy in
one’s unemployment.
The stimulus is, as you might have predicted, followed by a Flaw in the Reasoning question, so
the correct answer choice will describe the problem with Morgenstern’s questionable argument as
discussed above.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. Morgenstern equates two very different
states of unhappiness, appearing to see no difference between being unhappy in a job and being
“pretty unhappy” in unemployment.
Answer choice (B): This choice describes circular reasoning, the flawed argumentation that begins
by presuming the conclusion to be true. Although Morgenstern’s reasoning is not circular, many test
takers found this choice appealing. In a circular argument, the premise and conclusion are logically
equivalent, and that is not the case here. Rather, Morgenstern thinks that both states of unhappiness
discussed are equivalent.
Answer choice (C): This answer choice describes a “straw man” argument, in which someone
deliberately mischaracterizes a point in order to more easily refute it. In this case, however,
Morgenstern has not mischaracterized Brooks’ words, but instead has responded with a flawed
argument.
Answer choice (D): Morgenstern has not conflated two different types of risk; only one risk is
discussed. The issue here is that Morgenstern has equated two different types of unhappiness,
drawing the questionable conclusion that there is no risk in quitting. In LSAT language, this might be
referred to as “equivocation with respect to the central concept of unhappiness.”
Answer choice (E): The flaw in Morgenstern’s argument is not that he has drawn an unjustified
generalization on the basis of a single case; rather, the flaw in the reasoning is that Morgenstern’s
advice is based on a faulty presumption: that both types of unhappiness—that of having a job that is
unsatisfactory, and that of being unable to find another job—are equivalent, and suggesting that there
is not much risk involved in trading one for the other.
So quitting isn't automatically the best option.