Top Law Schools

So, I took this PT recently, and answered (A) for this particular flaw question. In review, I recognize the correctness of answer (B), but would also argue that (A) is correct. I apologize for those of you not in possession of this test. I would simply type out the question and answer choices but I'm not sure whether that would violate the posting real questions rule.

For those of you who are able to take a look at this question, please let me know what you think. In Kaplan's explanation, they say (A) is wrong simply because the passage doesn't do that. I disagree. Think about the general nature of the last sentence of the stimulus in context of the stimulus as a whole.

-Near

I just took a look at the question and my answer key says the correct answer is (B). Does this question involve elected officials and when they should resign? If that's the one, the key is to look for the word "only." Look at where it appears, and where it does not appear later in reference to the same thing.

I stared at this question for a good 5 minutes, gave up, and guessed the wrong answer. I still have to wrap my head around it for extended periods to understand it and if I encountered such a question on the real thing I'd be doomed.

Ya, I really do not understand this problem. It seems that the primary flaw is that people probably do not know the meaning of the terminology. I need a TLS genius to explain this one...

look at the second premise. Resign -> convicted , the conclusion is only true if the second premise read convicted -> resign. So B is correct

You gotta recognize the difference between "if" and "only if".

Ah, nevermind then.

Ah darn it. I confused the letters in my original post. I meant to write that I understood why (B) is a correct choice, not (C).

Willwash- Yes, that is the one.

Squirtle- You are correct. I agree one flaw in the argument is mistaking sufficient and necessary. However, could you address my concern with another answer choice being acceptable? That is, considering the clear transition from the survey to a general statement about "people", why is (A) incorrect? Further, if the answer is something along the line of, "it's not as noteworthy as the sufficient/necessary flaw", or "it is not the primary flaw", the question simply asks "The reasoning above is flawed because it..." Hence, either flaw would seem equally acceptable.

Shrimps- I'm afraid you're looking at the wrong question. I believe you're referring to the goat question (#22), while I am concerned with #25 (in the same section).

If (A) were a true flaw, then ALL reasoning involving polls would be flawed. But statistically, a correctly-picked sample is very highly reliable, and the stem says nothing about the poll itself being flawed. I highly doubt the test makers would go so far as to proclaim all statements based on polls to be "flawed logic". It would destroy not only the political discourse, but the entirety of sociology, much of psychology and a good chunk of anthropology.

Shrimps- Two issues I'm having.

1. Percentages are the only figures given. The survey could have consisted of a small group of people, too small to give a representation of public opinion. Without knowing whether the survey consisted of an adequate number of people, why take for granted the adequacy of that survey? In fact, many other LSAT questions test this specific idea.

2. The survey percentages refer to "people polled". Meanwhile, the conclusion conveniently leaves out the distinction. It simply refers to "more people". All people on the planet?

LSATs expectation of precise logical reasoning combined with poorly worded questions makes my head explode.

Near wrote:Shrimps- Two issues I'm having.

1. Percentages are the only figures given. The survey could have consisted of a small group of people, too small to give a representation of public opinion. Without knowing whether the survey consisted of an adequate number of people, why take for granted the adequacy of that survey? In fact, many other LSAT questions test this specific idea.

2. The survey percentages refer to "people polled". Meanwhile, the conclusion conveniently leaves out the distinction. It simply refers to "more people". All people on the planet?

LSATs expectation of precise logical reasoning combined with poorly worded questions makes my head explode.

First, the reasoning in the stem is very obviously flawed because it jumps from a sufficient to a required condition. If using surveys is a flaw, it is not a flaw in reasoning, but a flaw in the premise (I may be making up my own terminology here). Even if the entirety of the population were polled, the reasoning would still be flawed for exactly the same reason.

But then, drawing a conclusion about the population based on a representative survey is not, in itself, a flaw in the premise(unless logicians want to start a war with statisticians).

Dammit you're right. Thanks

Oh, I just thought of an easier way of expressing it. The question asked for a flaw in reasoning, not a flaw in conclusion (which could come from both flaws in reasoning and flaws in the premises). That's a very good thing to keep in mind when doing these sorts of questions. Thanks for bringing it up, Near. Heh.

Yep. "Valid" vs "Sound". After looking at it again, I still think there's a case to be made for A. But, I really never want to look at this problem again so I give up.