LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

Get expert LSAT preparation and law school admissions advice from PowerScore Test Preparation.

 Administrator
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 8917
  • Joined: Feb 02, 2011
|
#23770
Complete Question Explanation

Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (B)

A contract exists when two parties engage with each other for the reciprocal transfer of benefits. It is necessary that both parties willingly engage with each other, not just one of them. Just because the public provided the funds and the artist accepted them does not mean that the public was a party to the offer and its acceptance. It is perfectly plausible that the public does not even know about the benefit conferred upon the artist. Since only the artist conforms to the definition of a “contract” as defined by the author and the public does not, answer choice (B) is correct.

Answer choice (A): The conduct only confers benefits on all of the parties involved if all parties were willing participants in the contract. This answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. See discussion above.

Answer choice (C): Applying a general principle to a specific situation is not a flaw in the reasoning. There is no reason to suspect that the relationship between an artist and the public must be judged on a case-by-case basis.

Answer choice (D): This answer choice introduces considerations that are irrelevant to the argument.

Answer choice (E): There is no reason to believe that the resolution required is political, nor is there reason to suspect that the author believes it to be a matter of opinion. This answer choice is incorrect.
 aaronjdrake
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: Jun 11, 2017
|
#42010
What type of flaw in reasoning would this error be categorized as? Error in Conditional Reasoning?
 Francis O'Rourke
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 471
  • Joined: Mar 10, 2017
|
#42103
Hi Aaron,

Although the argument contains conditional reasoning, I would look at this an an Error in the Use of Evidence. We are given some evidence that the argument is correct, but not enough to guarantee it. The speaker however takes that partial evidence as conclusive.
 andriana.caban
  • Posts: 142
  • Joined: Jun 23, 2017
|
#67437
Hey!

So I managed to get the answer through process of elimination. I was stuck between (A) and (B). What does "justify" and "rule of conduct" mean?
 Legalistic
  • Posts: 20
  • Joined: Aug 12, 2019
|
#68433
Can someone please explain why C is wrong? I don't understand :cry:
User avatar
 KelseyWoods
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 1079
  • Joined: Jun 26, 2013
|
#68439
Hi!

Andriana: "Justify" means to show or prove to be right and reasonable. A "rule of conduct" is just a rule about how one is supposed to act or conduct themselves. Answer choice (A) is incorrect because it is basically saying that the author tried to say that just because a rule of conduct benefits everyone involved, that means it is the right thing to do. But our author did not do that. Our author does not say that publicly funded works of art actually benefit the public, just that they should.

Legalistic: Answer choice (C) is incorrect because we don't necessarily know and there's no reason for us to assume that these matters involve contingencies and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. So while the author may speak in abstract terms, that is not the flaw in the argument.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

Analyze and track your performance with our Testing and Analytics Package.