Why is the answer C)?
This is question number 24
LSAT Forum
2 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- sumukh09
-
Thanks Received: 139
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 327
- Joined: June 03rd, 2012
- Most Thanked
- First Responder
-
- rinagoldfield
-
Thanks Received: 309
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 390
- Joined: December 13th, 2011
- This post thanked 3 times.
Re: Q24 - The last outdoor drive-in
Tricky question!
Do you remember the strategy for match-the-flawed-reasoning questions? Start by trying to articulate the flaw from the original argument. If possible, articulate it in broad terms. Generalizing the flaw’s language makes it easier to identify the correct answer.
Here’s the original argument:
The movie theater made a profit during the week before it closed
-->
The claim that the theater is unprofitable is false
The argument assumes that what is true for the theater in one week (profits! packed houses!) must be true for the theater in general (profits! packed houses!). The argument fails to consider that one week of packed audiences might not be representative of most weeks.
In broad terms, the argument assumes that what is true in a specific instance must be true in general.
(C) correctly matches this flaw. It argues that the small group of protesting students represents all students. It assumes that what is true for a small sample must be true in general. This is very similar to the original argument, which assumes that what is true in one instance must be true in general.
(A) goes in the wrong direction. (A) suggests that what is generally true will be true in a specific instance (there are usually layoffs following budget cuts, so there will be layoffs following this budget cut). But we want to move from a specific instance to a general principle, not the other way around. (A) is out.
(B) doesn’t make the kind of specific-general jump we’re looking for. Besides, the conclusion of (B) makes a prediction about the future, while the conclusion of the original argument makes a general claim. Eliminate (B) as a mismatch.
(D) temptingly compares a general budget cut (the university’s) to a specific budget cut (the library’s). But the conclusion of (D) discusses fairness. The original argument doesn’t discuss fairness at all; it simply makes a broad claim. (D) is a mismatch.
(E) is really tantalizing, since its conclusion is superficially similar to the conclusion of the stimulus. But don’t be seduced by language matches! Remember, we’re looking for a logical match, NOT a language match. (E) compares two specific budgets rather than a specific budget to a general one. (E) is a mismatch, since we’re looking for a general claim based on a specific sample.
Do you remember the strategy for match-the-flawed-reasoning questions? Start by trying to articulate the flaw from the original argument. If possible, articulate it in broad terms. Generalizing the flaw’s language makes it easier to identify the correct answer.
Here’s the original argument:
The movie theater made a profit during the week before it closed
-->
The claim that the theater is unprofitable is false
The argument assumes that what is true for the theater in one week (profits! packed houses!) must be true for the theater in general (profits! packed houses!). The argument fails to consider that one week of packed audiences might not be representative of most weeks.
In broad terms, the argument assumes that what is true in a specific instance must be true in general.
(C) correctly matches this flaw. It argues that the small group of protesting students represents all students. It assumes that what is true for a small sample must be true in general. This is very similar to the original argument, which assumes that what is true in one instance must be true in general.
(A) goes in the wrong direction. (A) suggests that what is generally true will be true in a specific instance (there are usually layoffs following budget cuts, so there will be layoffs following this budget cut). But we want to move from a specific instance to a general principle, not the other way around. (A) is out.
(B) doesn’t make the kind of specific-general jump we’re looking for. Besides, the conclusion of (B) makes a prediction about the future, while the conclusion of the original argument makes a general claim. Eliminate (B) as a mismatch.
(D) temptingly compares a general budget cut (the university’s) to a specific budget cut (the library’s). But the conclusion of (D) discusses fairness. The original argument doesn’t discuss fairness at all; it simply makes a broad claim. (D) is a mismatch.
(E) is really tantalizing, since its conclusion is superficially similar to the conclusion of the stimulus. But don’t be seduced by language matches! Remember, we’re looking for a logical match, NOT a language match. (E) compares two specific budgets rather than a specific budget to a general one. (E) is a mismatch, since we’re looking for a general claim based on a specific sample.
2 posts Page 1 of 1