PrepTest 108, Section 2, Question 18
Sid: The sign says "Keep off the grass."(36 more words not shown)
Sid's argument is questionable in(2 more words not shown)
- Aattempts to use(15 more words not shown)
- Btreats a statement(19 more words not shown)
- Ccontradicts itself by(18 more words not shown)
- Ddiscounts the fact(12 more words not shown)
- Eattempts to undermine(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
One person crossing the grass and everyone crossing the grass are different situations. The grass might withstand the first and be destroyed by the second.
I can still understand Sid's concern. A rule saying “Keep off the grass” won't work well if everybody treats themselves as the harmless exception.
But that doesn't make Micki's particular statement false. Micki says one person walking across doesn't hurt the grass. Sid responds by imagining everyone accepting that claim, everyone crossing, and the grass dying.
That may be an argument for following the rule. It isn't a demonstration that one person's crossing causes damage. Both claims could be true: a single crossing does no harm, while widespread crossing destroys the grass.
What we’re looking for
The flaw question should describe that shift. Sid treats a claim about what one action does as though it were a claim about what would happen if everyone believed it and acted on it. We don't have to endorse Micki's choice to recognize that Sid hasn't disproved what Micki actually said.
Working the answers
- A
Micki's statement is already about a consequence: whether one person's crossing hurts the grass. Sid's reply also concerns a consequence: the grass dying if everyone believes the statement and crosses. So the contrast isn't consequences versus actions themselves. A misses the important change from one person's action to widespread belief and the behavior Sid says would follow.
- BCorrect
The action is one person walking across the grass, and Micki says its consequence is no harm. Sid instead considers the consequences of everyone believing that statement: everyone crosses, and the grass dies. That different outcome doesn't establish that the single crossing was harmful. B identifies both sides of the switch.
- C
Sid doesn't assert that everyone actually believes Micki. Sid asks what would happen if everyone did. Someone can reject a belief while considering a hypothetical world where everybody accepts it. That is not an internal contradiction, even though the resulting argument fails to refute Micki.
- D
There might be good reasons to cross the grass despite damaging it, such as reaching someone who needs urgent help. But Micki hasn't argued that causing damage is justified here. The statement under dispute is whether a single crossing causes harm at all. D changes that dispute into a different question about when harm is acceptable.
- E
Sid doesn't attack Micki's honesty, intelligence, or character. The response is about what would happen if the belief became widespread. An attack on a person could be a different argumentative mistake, but it isn't the mistake made here.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.