## LR:SN

Prepare for the LSAT or discuss it with others in this forum.
epokei

Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:22 pm

### LR:SN

I am using the Powerscore's "LSAT Logical Reasoning:Question Type Training".
(P.337 #13)
I know I shouldn't post a whole question stem and answer choices, however I couldn't figure out which year of this problem had issued.
So I will post the question stem and the two answer choices: one, the correct answer and other, the one sounds right to me also...

Stem: All intelligent people are nearsighted. I am very nearsighted. So I must be a genius.

Question: Which one of the following exhibits both of the logical flaws exhibited in the argument above?

How I did the breakdown...
IP NS
NS IP This is MISTAKEN REVERSAL

The correct answer for this was (D) John is extremely happy, so he must be extremely tall because all tall people are happy.

I understood this is the correct answer, however, I thought the other choice sounds also right.
(B) All chicken have beaks. This bird has a beak. So this bird must be a chicken.

spyke123

Posts: 365
Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 2:41 am

### Re: LR:SN

Here, the key terms are "very" and "extreme." It is a form of mistaken reversal but more accurately the stem argues that A->B then, very B -> very A (very intelligent). Hope this helps.

MrBain_

Posts: 39
Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 1:53 am

### Re: LR:SN

epokei wrote: Question: Which one of the following exhibits both of the logical flaws exhibited in the argument above?

The MR isn't the only fallacy in the argument. Im not sure of the exact term, but intelligent =/= genius, and likewise extremely happy =/= happy. However, chicken = chicken therefore B ~TCR.

Asleep

Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 2:29 am

### Re: LR:SN

There are two logical flaws here. The first, the one you caught, is the reversal. The second is assuming that more of one condition leads to more of another. Just because all nearsighted people are smart does not mean that the more nearsighted you are, the smarter you are.

This same mistake is made in D, but not in A. A matches one, but not both, of the logical flaws required in the question.

Hope this helps!

epokei

Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:22 pm

### Re: LR:SN

Oh, I see it now.
I have to read more closely....
Thank you so much, it DID help.

Sloth Hero

Posts: 230
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 2:32 pm

### Re: LR:SN

epokei wrote:Oh, I see it now.
I have to read more closely....
Thank you so much, it DID help.

LSAT is sneaky.

Audio Technica Guy

Posts: 317
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 5:21 pm

### Re: LR:SN

To me this reeks of "made up or very old" question. Can anybody verify that this was an actual question and not something powerscore made up? This just doesn't ring like a question they'd ask today, though I guess it's possible. Something just seems very non-LSAC-y to use precise terms.

suspicious android

Posts: 919
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 4:54 pm

### Re: LR:SN

Audio Technica Guy wrote:To me this reeks of "made up or very old" question. Can anybody verify that this was an actual question and not something powerscore made up? This just doesn't ring like a question they'd ask today, though I guess it's possible. Something just seems very non-LSAC-y to use precise terms.

It's real, though it's from October, 1991, so it's about as old as they come. Seems fine to me, but I've always felt the old LRs are fine, don't think the subtle changes in style over the last 20 years is much of a big deal.

Audio Technica Guy

Posts: 317
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 5:21 pm

### Re: LR:SN

suspicious android wrote:
Audio Technica Guy wrote:To me this reeks of "made up or very old" question. Can anybody verify that this was an actual question and not something powerscore made up? This just doesn't ring like a question they'd ask today, though I guess it's possible. Something just seems very non-LSAC-y to use precise terms.

It's real, though it's from October, 1991, so it's about as old as they come. Seems fine to me, but I've always felt the old LRs are fine, don't think the subtle changes in style over the last 20 years is much of a big deal.

Yeah, I mean I don't think it's a bad question or anything, it just struck me as not being something that LSAC would put out today. Can't exactly say why though.

### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 8 guests