Q19 - Cyclists in the Tour de France

[noah]

June 2008 LSAT answers
19. (B)
Question Type: Identify a flaw
Since all winners of this race have been extremely fit, and since extremely fit usually includes incredible lungs and hearts, the fact that last year’s winner didn’t have an incredible heart must mean he or she must have had amazing lungs. This argument would not be flawed if the initial premise were different: winners of this race must have either a strong heart or strong lungs. If that had been the premise, then the lack of one characteristic would require the other to be present. However, since the two conditions are simply examples of what being physically fit typically involves, we can’t infer anything from the absence of one of these characteristics. (B) describes the possibility of a winner not having the typical characteristics of being physically fit _ yet he or she could still be fit and the race’s winner.

Analogously, let’s say that we know that all students who are accepted to Harvard are nerds and that that nerds usually have thick glasses and a strange laugh. Does it mean that every nerd has those characteristics? Since my job is to write LSAT question explanations, I’m definitely a nerd, but I don’t’ have thick glasses or a strange laugh. Does it mean that everyone at Harvard has those characteristics? Nope. Does it mean that if a nerd doesn’t have a strange laugh, she has thick glasses? No. The glasses and laugh are simply typical characteristics, they’re not required.

(A) is reversed. In some sense, the argument does indicate that those characteristics are an advantage.
(C) is a misinterpretation since it suggests that the two characteristics cannot coexist. The argument’s flaw is that it assumes that a cyclist must have one or the other.
(D) is out of scope.
(E) is out of scope because it discusses the relationship of the two conditions to physiology to most cyclists, and it does not note whether it is a positive or negative relationship.


#officialexplanation

[boy5237]

I definitely agree with you.
I actually diagrammed this out to see it more clearly:

Now typically could mean some or most but either way...

Race winners -> Have an excellent ABs.
Some or Most Have an excellent Abs -> Lung capacity or powerful hearts

However, last year winner -> ~powerful hearts
---
Therefore, must have lung capacity.

Well the argument treats as though that transitive property could be applied between first and second premise.

Therefore wrong.

[timsportschuetz]

After taking countless PT's during my preparation, I made a huge realization that has helped me significantly with this rather specific type of flaw question. If the following is obvious to everyone but myself, then please disregard my comment! I thought that mentioning this may help some people skip over the hours of analysis it took me to derive this useful test-tool:

If you are working on a flaw question that has a question stem specifically stating that the argument is flawed due to the author OVERLOOKING OR IGNORING A CERTAIN POSSIBILITY, then you can immediately treat such a flaw question as a WEAKEN QUESTION! I could go ahead and explain the logical validity behind the above method, however, it would take too long at the moment. In summary, when this type of question stem presents itself, switch gears by immediately re-categorizing this type of flaw question into a WEAKEN question! Then attack as usual! If you are an astute test taker, your next question may be: "well, what do I do if an answer choice starts with those annoying 'presumes without warrant', 'takes for granted', etc....,?" My answer is simple: "It will NEVER happen!"

I truly hope this helps someone out there studying their free-time away...

[Jasonzhang]

After taking countless PT's during my preparation, I made a huge realization that has helped me significantly with this rather specific type of flaw question. If the following is obvious to everyone but myself, then please disregard my comment! I thought that mentioning this may help some people skip over the hours of analysis it took me to derive this useful test-tool:

If you are working on a flaw question that has a question stem specifically stating that the argument is flawed due to the author OVERLOOKING OR IGNORING A CERTAIN POSSIBILITY, then you can immediately treat such a flaw question as a WEAKEN QUESTION! I could go ahead and explain the logical validity behind the above method, however, it would take too long at the moment. In summary, when this type of question stem presents itself, switch gears by immediately re-categorizing this type of flaw question into a WEAKEN question! Then attack as usual! If you are an astute test taker, your next question may be: "well, what do I do if an answer choice starts with those annoying 'presumes without warrant', 'takes for granted', etc....,?" My answer is simple: "It will NEVER happen!"

I truly hope this helps someone out there studying their free-time away...

Thank you so much for this helpful hint.

I found that when the flaw question asks the argument "takes for granted that/ presumes without justification that", the correct answer should be followed by some STRENGTHENING information, which is necessary but not sufficient for a correct answer choice started with "takes for granted/ presumes without justification/etc."

[mmkg4200]

This argument would not be flawed if the initial premise were different: winners of this race must have either a strong heart or strong lungs. If that had been the premise, then the lack of one characteristic would require the other to be present. However, since the two conditions are simply examples of what being physically fit typically involves, we can’t infer anything from the absence of one of these characteristics. (B) describes the possibility of a winner not having the typical characteristics of being physically fit _ yet he or she could still be fit and the race’s winne