PrepTest 114, Section 2, Question 20
Professor Beckstein: American Sign Language is the native(91 more words not shown)
Professor Sedley uses which one(12 more words not shown)
- Aattempting to demonstrate(16 more words not shown)
- Btrying to show(13 more words not shown)
- Cquestioning an opponent's(7 more words not shown)
- Doffering an alternative(11 more words not shown)
- Eagreeing with the(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What is the language requirement meant to achieve? If the aim were to have students learn an additional language, focusing only on whether a language has native speakers nearby might miss that aim. But the passage doesn't establish the policy's purpose, so I won't use that guess as if it were Sedley's argument.
Sedley tests Beckstein's rule by carrying it into other cases. Beckstein says American Sign Language shouldn't count because it is native to many North Americans. French and Spanish meet that description too. Follow the same reasoning and they must be excluded as well.
That is the result Sedley rejects. Many students currently satisfy the requirement with French or Spanish, and Sedley calls prohibiting that ridiculous. So the objection is to the reasoning that would produce this unwanted result.
What we’re looking for
For the method question, I'd describe the response as applying the opponent's reason to another case and showing an unacceptable consequence.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
The original conclusion would exclude American Sign Language. The other conclusion would exclude French and Spanish. Sedley shows that Beckstein's reason supports both, then rejects the second result.
That is why the comparison matters. It pressures Beckstein to explain why the criterion is acceptable in the first case when its application in the other cases would be undesirable. The response challenges the reason for exclusion, rather than denying that the languages have North American native speakers.
- B
An undesirable result isn't a contradiction. The claim that a language has many North American native speakers can coexist with the recommendation to exclude it from a requirement. Sedley's criticism is that the same reasoning yields another recommendation Sedley finds unacceptable, not that Beckstein's conclusion logically conflicts with the evidence supporting it.
- C
Sedley doesn't question Beckstein's credentials, knowledge or right to discuss the issue. The response examines where Beckstein's reasoning leads. An objection to an argument's consequences is different from an objection to the speaker's authority.
- D
There are facts in the exchange, including which languages are native to many people. But Sedley doesn't give an alternative explanation of how those facts came about. The response applies Beckstein's reason to French and Spanish. D would describe explaining the evidence differently, rather than demonstrating an unwanted extension of the rule.
- E
Sedley doesn't endorse Beckstein's conclusion while substituting different support. The response rejects the offered basis for excluding American Sign Language by exposing the additional exclusions it would produce. We aren't given the agreement with the conclusion that E requires.
More Strategy of Argument questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strategy of Argument questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.