- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8950
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Fri Jan 13, 2017 11:20 am
#32071
Complete Question Explanation
Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (A)
This problem is a good example of a flaw question in which the scenario in the stimulus is not terribly complex. It's a reasonably straightforward observation to note that it is not possible to conclude that this year we will definitely have over 100 participants just because (1) we already have 85 signed up and (2) at the same point last year we had 77 signups out of an eventual 100 plus. The difficulty might arise with generating an accurate prephrase and perhaps getting mixed up in the answer choices. Like their relatives Method of Reasoning, Parallel the Flaw, and Parallel the Reasoning, Flaw questions are best tackled with a certain degree of abstraction. In other words, you should be prepared to work through the stimulus, identify its components, and then decribe with precision what the problem is. The best prephrases will have both a great degree of precision and also not be dependent on the particular, specific circumstances of the scenario illustrated in the stimulus. For example, here a good prephrase might be:
Once you have an accurate prephrase, you must match this description to the answer choices, eliminating choices that either do not match or are only partial matches.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. This answer gives an accurate match for your prephrase. Note the abstract description that matches part for part with the stimulus above. The author generalizes from previous performance that performance this year will result in a similar outcome.
Answer choice (B): Like many incorrect answers on flaw questions, this choice attempts to attract test-takers with a seemingly relevant, concrete description of the flaw in the stimulus. Because this answer choice begins with the phrase "takes for granted that," the following information represents a purported assumption that the author must make for his conclusion to be valid. It is not necessary that the author assume that all the same people who participated last year will participate this year. Though this may seem attractive, beware of answers on flaw questions that obviate the need to abstract from the specifics (this is not to say that correct answers on flaw questions can never be concrete, only that you should be careful).
Answer choice (C): This choice is a great example of how the power of familiarity with the common fallacies and how they are presented on the LSAT can allow you efficiently and accurately to rule out incorrect answers. This answer choice describes a Mistaken Reversal™ or fallacy of the converse, a mistake in conditional reasoning, not what we have in this stimulus.
Answer choice (D): Quite simply, the information in this answer choice is irrelevant and inaccurate. What this choice attempts to do is introduce a scenario that would purportedly weaken the conclusion. It is based on a misunderstanding of the argument. In fact, if participants outside the community could also be expected to show up, the author would have all the more reason to reach his conclusion.
Answer choice (E): Like choice (C), this choice introduces another common fallacy, one that is rather uncommon in practice but frequent as an incorrect answer choice. This informal fallacy of equivocation describes a situation in which the same term or concept is used in multiple, different senses in the argument. One gets the sense that sometimes the LSAT writers just need to toss in one more incorrect answer choice and grab one out of the proverbial hat.
Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (A)
This problem is a good example of a flaw question in which the scenario in the stimulus is not terribly complex. It's a reasonably straightforward observation to note that it is not possible to conclude that this year we will definitely have over 100 participants just because (1) we already have 85 signed up and (2) at the same point last year we had 77 signups out of an eventual 100 plus. The difficulty might arise with generating an accurate prephrase and perhaps getting mixed up in the answer choices. Like their relatives Method of Reasoning, Parallel the Flaw, and Parallel the Reasoning, Flaw questions are best tackled with a certain degree of abstraction. In other words, you should be prepared to work through the stimulus, identify its components, and then decribe with precision what the problem is. The best prephrases will have both a great degree of precision and also not be dependent on the particular, specific circumstances of the scenario illustrated in the stimulus. For example, here a good prephrase might be:
- The argument assumes that based on a past rate of participation this year we can expect a similar rate of participation
Once you have an accurate prephrase, you must match this description to the answer choices, eliminating choices that either do not match or are only partial matches.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. This answer gives an accurate match for your prephrase. Note the abstract description that matches part for part with the stimulus above. The author generalizes from previous performance that performance this year will result in a similar outcome.
Answer choice (B): Like many incorrect answers on flaw questions, this choice attempts to attract test-takers with a seemingly relevant, concrete description of the flaw in the stimulus. Because this answer choice begins with the phrase "takes for granted that," the following information represents a purported assumption that the author must make for his conclusion to be valid. It is not necessary that the author assume that all the same people who participated last year will participate this year. Though this may seem attractive, beware of answers on flaw questions that obviate the need to abstract from the specifics (this is not to say that correct answers on flaw questions can never be concrete, only that you should be careful).
Answer choice (C): This choice is a great example of how the power of familiarity with the common fallacies and how they are presented on the LSAT can allow you efficiently and accurately to rule out incorrect answers. This answer choice describes a Mistaken Reversal™ or fallacy of the converse, a mistake in conditional reasoning, not what we have in this stimulus.
Answer choice (D): Quite simply, the information in this answer choice is irrelevant and inaccurate. What this choice attempts to do is introduce a scenario that would purportedly weaken the conclusion. It is based on a misunderstanding of the argument. In fact, if participants outside the community could also be expected to show up, the author would have all the more reason to reach his conclusion.
Answer choice (E): Like choice (C), this choice introduces another common fallacy, one that is rather uncommon in practice but frequent as an incorrect answer choice. This informal fallacy of equivocation describes a situation in which the same term or concept is used in multiple, different senses in the argument. One gets the sense that sometimes the LSAT writers just need to toss in one more incorrect answer choice and grab one out of the proverbial hat.
