Flawed question? June 2008, LR section 2, question 19

youarereadingthis
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2010 1:57 pm

Flawed question? June 2008, LR section 2, question 19

Postby youarereadingthis » Sun Apr 03, 2011 11:17 am

Maybe I'm crazy?

The stimulus asserts in a premise that the team only lost when Jennifer was not playing. The conclusion states Jennifer's presence will ensure a win.

The stem asks how the argument is vulnerable to criticism and apparently the answer is D.

D states: Presumes, without justification, occurrences that previously coincided must continue to coincide.

How is the correct answer D? Doesn't this answer choice incorrectly assume the logical opposite of losing is winning? Losing and winning are not logical opposites, they are polar opposites. The logical opposite of "losing" should be "not losing". I don't agree with Choice D because some of the games "not lost" by the team could have resulted in a tie, and the stimulus conclusion asserts Jennifer's presence ensures a win.

What am I missing? :|
Last edited by youarereadingthis on Sun Apr 03, 2011 8:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
EarlCat
Posts: 610
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 4:04 pm

Re: Flawed question? June 2008, LR section 1, question 19

Postby EarlCat » Sun Apr 03, 2011 12:05 pm

This is actually section 2 of June 2008 (PT 54).

youarereadingthis wrote:Doesn't this answer choice incorrectly assume the logical opposite of losing is winning?

The argument, not the answer choice, assumes the Eagles play a sport in which ties are not possible. This fact doesn't eliminate the cause/correlation flaw described by D. Pointing out out only one of several flaws does not make the answer incorrect.

youarereadingthis
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2010 1:57 pm

Re: Flawed question? June 2008, LR section 1, question 19

Postby youarereadingthis » Sun Apr 03, 2011 12:36 pm

Ok I gotcha. The correct answer only needed to point out one of (in this case multiple) reasons why the argument is vulnerable.

User avatar
EarlCat
Posts: 610
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 4:04 pm

Re: Flawed question? June 2008, LR section 1, question 19

Postby EarlCat » Sun Apr 03, 2011 1:02 pm

youarereadingthis wrote:Ok I gotcha. The correct answer only needed to point out one of (in this case multiple) reasons why the argument is vulnerable.

You got it.

youarereadingthis
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2010 1:57 pm

Re: Flawed question? June 2008, LR section 1, question 19

Postby youarereadingthis » Sun Apr 03, 2011 8:03 pm

Thank you for the help :D




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alexandros, bearedman8, Bing [Bot], cherrygalore, jagerbom79, Yahoo [Bot] and 12 guests