Exam LSAT Section 1 Logical Reasoning topic 1 question 117 discussion

Actual exam question from Test Prep's LSAT Section 1 Logical Reasoning

Question #: 117
Topic #: 1

[All LSAT Section 1 Logical Reasoning Questions]

Formal performance evaluations in the professional world are conducted using realistic situations. Physicians are allowed to consult medical texts freely, attorneys may refer to law books and case records, and physicists and engineers have their manuals at hand for ready reference. Students, then, should likewise have access to their textbooks whenever they take examinations.
The reasoning in the argument is questionable because the argument

A. cites examples that are insufficient to support the generalization that performance evaluations in the professional world are conducted in realistic situations
B. fails to consider the possibility that adopting its recommendation will not significantly increase most students' test scores
C. neglects to take into account the fact that professionals were once students who also did not have access to textbooks during examinations
D. neglects to take into account the fact that, unlike students, professionals have devoted many years of study to one subject
E. fails to consider the possibility that the purposes of evaluation in the professional world and in school situations are quite dissimilar

Show Suggested Answer

Suggested Answer: E 🗳️
This is a Flaw question. For these questions, its usually possible to form a prephrase of the answer, which should save you time in reviewing answer choices. Put simply, the argument says that students should be allowed to have open book tests. Why? Because in performance evaluations in the professional world, doctors, lawyers, etc. are allowed to refer to their books. This is nothing more than an argument by analogy. The operating assumption in all arguments by analogy is that the two things that are compared are, in fact, comparable. Therefore, the best way to weaken them is to show how the two things are not comparable. Or, in this case, where you must determine why the reasoning is questionable, look for an answer choice that says something along the lines of "the reasoning is flawed because it tries to compare apples and oranges." E. does just that by saying that the author hasn’t considered the possibility that the purposes of the two tests mentioned in the stimulus are in fact quite dissimilar.

by [deleted] at March 9, 2025, 1:26 p.m.

Comments

Submit Cancel

Currently there are no comments in this discussion, be the first to comment!