Q1 - Student: My university recently enacted new penalties

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Flaw

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: New penalties are going to be just as ineffective as old attempts to curb drinking.
Evidence: The university has tried to curb drinking in the past and the attempts have never been successful.

Answer Anticipation:
This is some form of the ol' "Because X has been true in the past, X will be true again" argument. Some people label this a Temporal Flaw (but LSAT has never called it that). It's really just a specific type of Comparison Flaw.

The author is saying "Since X was true in this situation, X will be true in this other, presumably similar, situation." And LSAT wants us to attack these arguments by highlighting significant differences between the older/other situations and the new/current situation.

For example, we could argue that THIS time the attempt might be successful because there's something unique about our current plan (perhaps our attempts in the past never involved PENALTIES for drinking, only INCENTIVES for not-drinking)

Correct Answer:
D

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) No, knowing the specific penalties wouldn't in and of itself help us judge whether the new penalties are significantly different from the old ones.

(B) The author was never implying that all students drink alcohol in on-campus housing, so this doesn't constitute an objection.

(C) The author doesn't need to assume that students PREFER drinking on-campus. Even if drinking on-campus is their 2nd choice, you can still make an argument about whether new penalties will curb that activity.

(D) YES. Whenever an author says "if X has been true in the past, it'll be true again this time", they're looking for some general or specific version of "But THIS time is different!"

(E) This case (i.e. this conclusion) is only about whether the new penalties will be effective at reducing drinking. Other consequences are irrelevant.

Takeaway/Pattern: Experienced LSAT takers are going to find this one pretty easy, because the flaw is familiar and the correct answer is phrased close to how we would anticipate it. If you're not already familiar with this archetype, you should be practicing thinking "Whenever an author assumes what has been true in the past will be true again, she is assuming the past and the present are FAIR TO COMPARE, and failing to consider that they could be MEANINGFULLY DIFFERENT."

#officialexplanation