LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

Get expert LSAT preparation and law school admissions advice from PowerScore Test Preparation.

 Administrator
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 8950
  • Joined: Feb 02, 2011
|
#23747
Complete Question Explanation

Weaken—CE. The correct answer choice is (C)

According to this stimulus, when laser printer drums are damaged, they leave a similar-sized blemish on each page printed. The author concludes that a blemished page can easily be traced back to the printer that produced it:
  • Cause ..... ..... ..... ..... :arrow: ..... Effect
    Specific damaged printer ..... :arrow: ..... blemish
As with many LSAT causal weaken questions, we might want to look for the answer choice that presents an alternative cause for the referenced effect.

Answer choice (A): The stimulus has nothing to do with criminals—only suspicious documents, so this answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (B): This answer choice does not weaken the author's argument, which would allow for a difficult process—the assertion is that such blemishes can be quickly traced to the printer that made them.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. If the same nick is produced on several drums, then any given blemish on paper could not necessarily be traced back to the specific printer that produced it. This answer choice provides the possible alternative cause that we were looking for: all other printers that have that same damage to their printer drum.

Answer choice (D): This answer choice has no effect on the strength of the author's argument—the author's assertion is that once a blemish is located it can be traced back to the printer that produced it.

Answer choice (E): The proportion of suspicious documents that are printed on laser printers is irrelevant to the question of whether blemishes can be quickly traced back to the producing printer based on the dimensions of the blemish.
User avatar
 emilyjmyer
  • Posts: 48
  • Joined: May 11, 2022
|
#96815
Hi!

Can someone elaborate on why D is incorrect?

If a blemish is totally concealed, wouldn't that prevent it from being matched to a nick?

Thanks!
User avatar
 atierney
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 215
  • Joined: Jul 06, 2021
|
#96837
Hello!

Yes, the argument is specific to the extent that upon viewing the blemish one can trace it back to laser-printer that produced it. Whether or not the blemish is conceal is irrelevant to the actual argument, which assumes that one has identified the blemish.

Let me know if you have further questions on this.
 ltowns1
  • Posts: 60
  • Joined: May 16, 2017
|
#97210
One question about this, I thought the “so in” part of the conclusion wasn’t proven or didn’t have to be taken as true because it did not start off in the way a hypothetical normally would by introducing the word “if”? Were we just suppose to read it and accept that as true? (Hope that makes sense)
 Adam Tyson
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 5400
  • Joined: Apr 14, 2011
|
#97255
I'm not sure I follow you there, ltowns1, but "so in" works exactly like "if" in this case. If we match a blemish to a nick, we can match a page to the printer that produced it, according to the author. It's treating every blemish like a unique fingerprint. The weakness, then, is that these nicks might NOT be unique, so matching a blemish to a nick would not be conclusive. Answer C is telling us that nicks are NOT like fingerprints in that regard.
 ltowns1
  • Posts: 60
  • Joined: May 16, 2017
|
#97279
Yep, that answers my question, thanks Adam
User avatar
 emilyjmyer
  • Posts: 48
  • Joined: May 11, 2022
|
#97473
atierney wrote: Mon Aug 22, 2022 6:24 pm Hello!

Yes, the argument is specific to the extent that upon viewing the blemish one can trace it back to laser-printer that produced it. Whether or not the blemish is conceal is relevant to the actual argument, which assumes that one has identified the blemish.

Let me know if you have further questions on this.
Hi!

Thanks for getting back to me. I am still kind of confused on this. How is concealing the blemish irrelevant? If it is covered wouldn't that prevent you from identifying the nick on the drum?

Thanks!
User avatar
 atierney
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 215
  • Joined: Jul 06, 2021
|
#97628
Yes, if it is covered, then you don't know the blemish is there to begin with, right? So, the idea is that, well, I don't even know the blemish exists, therefore how can I hope to identify something of which I am unaware.

Let me know if this makes sense.

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

Analyze and track your performance with our Testing and Analytics Package.