PT 56, S2, Q7 - Dana intentionally watered the plant every

[bbirdwell]

Question Type: Match the Flaw

This is a good example of how modifiers can create logical confusion _ in this case, the modifier "intentionally." Dana intentionally watered the plant. Her actions led to the plant’s death. Therefore Dana intentionally killed the plant? This conclusion is unwarranted. (Just for fun, step outside of the LSAT for a moment and consider this argument. Can you imagine wanting to kill a plant, and then deciding to do so by over-watering it over the course of several days or weeks?)

It is plausible, if not likely, that Dana did not know that watering the plant frequently would lead to its death. The insertion of the word "intentionally" in the conclusion is the big error. While it is true that Dana caused the plant to die (killed it), there is insufficient evidence to conclude that she killed it intentionally. When we evaluate the choices, we should look for this false "intention" in the conclusion. (C) demonstrates the same flaw. Yes, the owner took the item off the menu, and yes that decision disappointed Jerry, but did the owner intend to disappoint Jerry?

(A) is incorrect because it does not match the original argument whatsoever. It includes no incorrect assumption of intentionality.
(B) is wrong because it does not match the original argument, and doesn’t even represent a flawed argument. This reasoning is actually quite sound.
(D) does not represent flawed reasoning. A caused B, B caused C, therefore A caused C.
(E) is like (D). A caused B, and whatever caused B caused C. Therefore A caused C. This reasoning is not flawed.