PrepTest 131, Section 3, Question 22
Since anyone who makes an agreement has an(55 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(8 more words not shown)
- AThe argument fails(36 more words not shown)
- BThe argument takes(37 more words not shown)
- CThe argument contains(26 more words not shown)
- DThe argument treats(36 more words not shown)
- EThe argument rests(29 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Making an agreement creates an obligation to fulfill it. In ordinary terms, keep your word. Let's accept that starting point.
Does it follow that every obligation comes from an agreement? I might have an obligation not to harm someone even though I never made an agreement with that person. The passage gives one way to acquire an obligation and treats it as the only way.
Then another word appears: “legal.” We were talking about obligations generally. Now the author identifies a legal obligation with the requirement to fulfill an agreement.
Those aren't automatically the same. If my dog makes a mess on the bed, I may have a responsibility to clean it up without that responsibility being something a court enforces. Or I might consider studying for the LSAT a responsibility to myself without thinking the law requires it.
What we’re looking for
So there are two problems to look for in the flaw description. The argument turns an agreement from a sufficient basis for an obligation into a required basis, then treats obligations generally as legal obligations. An answer needs to describe both moves accurately.
Working the answers
- A
The distinction we need is between obligations generally and legal obligations, not between legal duties and actions with good consequences. The argument never introduces beneficial consequences as its standard. A's second part also describes extending claims about legal obligations to obligations generally, whereas the argument moves from general obligations to the legal category.
- B
The argument does not take for granted that obligations can arise without agreements. It effectively rules that out, which is the problem. B's second claim concerns why people choose to fulfill agreements, but the argument is about what makes an action obligatory, not what motivates someone to perform it.
- C
The starting premise says an agreement creates an obligation. The conclusion equates a legal obligation with fulfilling an agreement. Those claims are not logically equivalent; the unsupported additions are exactly what we challenged. The argument also imposes no restriction on which actions people should agree to perform.
- DCorrect
An agreement is sufficient to create an obligation under the stated premise: making it gives you a duty. The argument wrongly makes an agreement a requirement by claiming every duty must have arisen that way. It then assumes that these obligations are legal ones. D identifies both the mistaken requirement and the unsupported shift to the legal category.
- E
“Action” keeps its ordinary meaning of something a person does. The argument doesn't exploit an ambiguity in that term. People might also be unwilling to do what they agreed to do and still be obligated to do it, so that possibility doesn't expose either flaw in this reasoning.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.