PrepTest 106, Section 2, Question 2
The law firm of Sutherlin, Pérez, and Associates(54 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the argument(5 more words not shown)
- Aoffers in support(10 more words not shown)
- Boverlooks the possibility(14 more words not shown)
- Cconcludes that someone(25 more words not shown)
- Dtakes a high(20 more words not shown)
- Estates a generalization(20 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A high acquittal rate makes me wonder which cases the firm accepts. If it takes only cases it expects to win, its record might reflect case selection as well as skill. A tutor who accepts only students already scoring very highly could similarly advertise impressive final scores. The results alone wouldn't tell us how much the tutor contributed.
But that's not where this argument goes. The conclusion is about whether Dalton belongs to the firm, and the firm's win rate doesn't settle that.
Why couldn't Dalton be its divorce specialist? A firm that mainly handles criminal defense could also have a smaller divorce practice. “Our firm primarily does criminal defense” doesn't mean “Every lawyer here primarily does criminal defense.” The firm's overall focus and an individual lawyer's focus can differ.
What we’re looking for
For the flaw question, that's the jump to identify: the author excludes Dalton because Dalton's specialty differs from the firm's main specialty. Our earlier question about case selection might matter to an argument about the firm's skill, but it doesn't explain the error in this membership conclusion.
Working the answers
- A
The premises can all be true together: the firm can specialize in criminal defense, have an excellent acquittal rate, and Dalton can specialize in divorce. Nothing in those facts contradicts another fact. The problem is the conclusion drawn from them, not an inconsistency among the evidence.
- B
Dalton could practice independently, but that possibility doesn't undermine the claim that Dalton cannot belong to this particular firm. To challenge that claim, we need to show how Dalton could belong despite the difference in specialties. The availability of solo practice doesn't address the author's basis for ruling membership out.
- CCorrect
The group is Sutherlin, Pérez, and Associates. Its characteristic is a primary focus on criminal defense. Dalton's primary focus is divorce, so the author concludes Dalton cannot be a member.
That treats the group's overall specialty as a requirement for every individual member. But a firm with many criminal-defense lawyers and one divorce specialist could still primarily handle criminal defense. Dalton could be that specialist, making the premises true and the conclusion false.
- D
The author never concludes that every lawyer shares the firm's acquittal rate. That would be a different mistake: some lawyers could win far more often than others while the firm's overall rate stayed above 90 percent. Here the conclusion concerns Dalton's membership, not the distribution of successful cases across the firm's lawyers.
- E
The author isn't using a selected set of firms or attorneys to draw a general conclusion about a larger population. The conclusion singles out Dalton. Our initial suspicion about how the firm selects cases doesn't turn this into a sampling argument; we need an answer describing how the actual conclusion is reached.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.