PrepTest 111, Section 3, Question 2
Raymond Burr played the role of lawyer Perry(62 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the argument(5 more words not shown)
- Atakes the views(10 more words not shown)
- Bcriticizes the lawyer(5 more words not shown)
- Cpresumes that the(10 more words not shown)
- Dfocuses on a(19 more words not shown)
- Eignores the part(15 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The lawyer literally says Burr wasn't a lawyer.
Raymond Burr played Perry Mason. The attorney is praising how convincingly Burr portrayed the profession: losing him feels like losing one of their own. That isn't the same as believing he actually practiced law. The phrases 'although not a lawyer' and 'as if' make the distinction clear.
So why does the author treat this as evidence that lawyers can't separate fiction from reality? The comment recognizes the difference while expressing admiration for the performance. Imagine saying an actor felt like part of your family. You needn't believe the actor is a relative to express that sense of loss.
What we’re looking for
The flaw question asks what went wrong in the author's reading. I'd look for an answer saying the author misinterprets the attorney's comment, especially by ignoring the very words that show awareness of the difference.
Working the answers
- A
The conclusion concerns some legal professionals, not all lawyers. Using one example to support a claim about some people isn't automatically an improper leap to everyone. The problem is that this particular example doesn't show the confusion the author claims it does.
- B
The author bases the criticism on what the lawyer said. We aren't given an unrelated attack on the lawyer's character or background as a reason to dismiss the statement. The flaw lies in misreading the words, not replacing an assessment of the statement with a personal attack.
- C
The author isn't relying on the lawyer's judgment to prove that Burr was a great actor. The author is using the comment as evidence about the lawyer's grasp of reality. Whether the lawyer is an expert judge of acting doesn't fix that misinterpretation. Someone can also praise a performance without needing professional credentials as an acting critic.
- D
We don't need to know how lawyers are usually portrayed on television to assess what this comment means. Other portrayals could be realistic or unrealistic, and this attorney would still have explicitly acknowledged that Burr wasn't a lawyer. The conclusion concerns the attorney's supposed confusion, not how typical Burr's performance was.
- ECorrect
The author ignores the attorney's explicit acknowledgment that Burr was not a lawyer. That acknowledgment shows the attorney distinguishes the actor from the role. Feeling as if the profession lost one of its own is a tribute to Burr's portrayal, not evidence that the attorney mistakes a fictional character for an actual legal professional.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.