- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8950
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Fri Jan 21, 2011 12:00 am
#36662
Complete Question Explanation
Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (A)
This stimulus takes a very familiar LSAT form: it begins with an assertion, concludes that the
assertion is not valid, and then provides support for this conclusion (although in this case that
support is questionable). In this example, the author opens with the contention of a leading critic of
space exploration, who claims that it would be wrong to send a manned expedition to Mars, because
current technology would make their survival unlikely.
The author asserts that this characterization is an exaggeration of the risk, because back-up security
systems exist at every stage, each making a fatal accident unlikely at any given stage of the trip:
what is true of each part is also true of the whole—that if each individual stage of the trip is safe,
then the overall trip must be safe as well.
The stimulus is followed by a Flaw question, so the correct answer choice will describe the flawed
presumption that what is true of each part must also be true of the whole.
Note: It is probably no coincidence that this question, which displays an Error of Composition,
is placed immediately after another question dealing with the related but distinguishable Error of
Division.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice, and an accurate description of the Error of
Composition displayed in the reasoning of the stimulus. The author wrongly infers that something
(crew safety) is true of a whole (the entire trip to Mars) merely from the fact that it is true of each
individual part (each stage of the trip).
Answer choice (B): The author of this stimulus does not infer that something cannot happen, but that
something (a fatal catastrophe) would be quite unlikely. Since there is no such inference, this choice cannot reflect the flawed reasoning found in the stimulus.
Answer choice (C): Much like wrong answer choice (B), this incorrect answer describes an
unjustified leap from probability to certainty. The author of the stimulus, however, does not make
this leap to certainty; the assertion is merely that a fatal accident is unlikely.
Answer choice (D): The author does not infer that anything will definitely work. Rather, the author
discusses backup safety measures that make an accident unlikely at any given stage of the trip
discussed. Since the stimulus deals with likelihood rather than certainty, this cannot be the correct
answer choice.
Answer choice (E): The author does not reject the critic’s concern based on the critic’s inadequate
argument. Rather, the author rejects the concern based on the safety measures in place at each stage
of the trip (and the flawed conclusion that an accident is unlikely to occur at any given stage of the
trip).
Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (A)
This stimulus takes a very familiar LSAT form: it begins with an assertion, concludes that the
assertion is not valid, and then provides support for this conclusion (although in this case that
support is questionable). In this example, the author opens with the contention of a leading critic of
space exploration, who claims that it would be wrong to send a manned expedition to Mars, because
current technology would make their survival unlikely.
The author asserts that this characterization is an exaggeration of the risk, because back-up security
systems exist at every stage, each making a fatal accident unlikely at any given stage of the trip:
- Claim: With current technology, those who try to go to Mars are unlikely to
survive the trip.
Author’s conclusion: This is an exaggeration.
Author’s premise: With back-up systems in place, a fatal accident is unlike at any given
stage.
what is true of each part is also true of the whole—that if each individual stage of the trip is safe,
then the overall trip must be safe as well.
The stimulus is followed by a Flaw question, so the correct answer choice will describe the flawed
presumption that what is true of each part must also be true of the whole.
Note: It is probably no coincidence that this question, which displays an Error of Composition,
is placed immediately after another question dealing with the related but distinguishable Error of
Division.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice, and an accurate description of the Error of
Composition displayed in the reasoning of the stimulus. The author wrongly infers that something
(crew safety) is true of a whole (the entire trip to Mars) merely from the fact that it is true of each
individual part (each stage of the trip).
Answer choice (B): The author of this stimulus does not infer that something cannot happen, but that
something (a fatal catastrophe) would be quite unlikely. Since there is no such inference, this choice cannot reflect the flawed reasoning found in the stimulus.
Answer choice (C): Much like wrong answer choice (B), this incorrect answer describes an
unjustified leap from probability to certainty. The author of the stimulus, however, does not make
this leap to certainty; the assertion is merely that a fatal accident is unlikely.
Answer choice (D): The author does not infer that anything will definitely work. Rather, the author
discusses backup safety measures that make an accident unlikely at any given stage of the trip
discussed. Since the stimulus deals with likelihood rather than certainty, this cannot be the correct
answer choice.
Answer choice (E): The author does not reject the critic’s concern based on the critic’s inadequate
argument. Rather, the author rejects the concern based on the safety measures in place at each stage
of the trip (and the flawed conclusion that an accident is unlikely to occur at any given stage of the
trip).
