PT 66 2: 13Test: PT 66
Question: Section 2: Question 13
Section: Logical Reasoning
First words: "Brooks: I’m unhappy in my..."
Type: Fix by Removing
Your Answer: Enter
Strategy: Approach any stimulus with a fix by stem as though it has a logical error; if you can find one, you should clearly prephrase what the error is and then look for an "LSAT speak" translation in the answer. Common errors, in no particular order of incidence, include: conflates cause and correlation, conflates necessary and sufficient, treats probabilities as absolutes, inappropriately generalizes evidence or analogies, incorrectly applies rates/ratios/percentages to hard numbers, attacks the speaker rather than the argument, states contradictory claims, utilizes contradictory evidence, employs ambiguous use of terms, assumes the conclusion (circular logic), parts to whole, whole to parts.
|Preface||Brooks is unhappy with her job, but is also worried about the risks associated with quitting.|
|Lemma||But you're already unhappy.|
|Conclusion||Quitting is just as bad as where you are.|
|Type of flaw||inappropriate generalization|
|Prephrase flaw in context of conclusion||Why can we equate being unhappy with a job with the risks and worries of being unhappy without a job?|
- This is correct because it points out that Brooks's unhappiness with her current job is probably smaller in both size and scope than would be her unhappiness if she were unemployed. Thus, Morgenstern uses "unhappy" in two different contexts, but treats them as though they are the same.
- This is wrong because , although Morgenstern assumes that there is only one risk in Brooks quitting her job, that is not the end of his argument. He moves on to, erroneously, say that this unhappiness is the same state she is now, so she might as well "reroll" the dice.
- This is wrong because Morgenstern doesn't mischaracterize what Brooks says, but rather uses her term of "unhappy" in two different ways without adequately comparing them.
- This is wrong because Morgenstern doesn't conflate two types of risks, but rather states that there is only one relevant risk that Brooks would take by quitting.
- This is wrong because Morgenstern does not use an example and apply it to a general case. Rather, he reasons and concludes solely on Brooks's situation.
Ask us about this question!
comments powered by Disqus