PrepTest 127, Section 2, Question 11
Lance: If experience teaches us nothing else, it(45 more words not shown)
Frank's argument is an attempt(5 more words not shown)
- Ademonstrating that Lance(9 more words not shown)
- Bshowing that Lance's(6 more words not shown)
- Cshowing that no(5 more words not shown)
- Destablishing that experience(8 more words not shown)
- Eshowing that it(7 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Lance's opening means that, whatever else experience teaches, it at least teaches us that every general rule has an exception. It doesn't mean experience teaches us literally nothing else. Many familiar rules do have exceptions, so the thought may sound reasonable at first.
Frank asks us to apply that claim to itself. 'Every general rule has an exception' is itself a general rule. If it is true, it too must have an exception. What would that exception be? A general rule with no exceptions.
Now we have a problem. Lance's claim says every rule has an exception, yet applying the claim requires an exceptionless rule. The claim ends up conflicting with itself. Frank's response isn't a competing observation about something experience has taught him; it is an attempt to show that Lance cannot consistently maintain this universal claim.
What we’re looking for
The stem asks how Frank counters Lance's conclusion. Look for a description of that internal conflict. Understanding the self-application is more useful here than getting distracted by how abstract the exchange sounds.
Working the answers
- A
Assuming what you set out to prove would mean using the conclusion as its own support. For example, 'This country's economy is best because it has the best economy' supplies no independent reason. Frank doesn't accuse Lance of doing that. He argues that Lance's rule produces a conflicting result when applied to itself.
- BCorrect
The contradiction is between every rule having an exception and at least one rule having none. Frank argues that taking Lance's universal rule as true commits Lance to both. That is why Frank tells him to withdraw the conclusion.
- C
Frank does not establish that no general rule can have exceptions. His response concerns the universal claim that every rule has one. Pointing toward at least one exceptionless rule would still leave room for many other rules with exceptions.
- D
Frank doesn't supply evidence that experience teaches the opposite lesson. He uses the content of Lance's claim against that claim. The issue is what the rule implies when applied to itself, not what new observations tell us about the world.
- E
Frank doesn't dismiss the statement as useless in real cases. His objection would remain even if Lance offered many practical examples of rules with exceptions: the universal rule still creates the self-application problem.
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.