PrepTest 142, Section 2, Question 1
Mary to Jamal: You acknowledge that as the(45 more words not shown)
Mary's reasoning is most vulnerable(5 more words not shown)
- Aoverlooks the possibility(26 more words not shown)
- Boverlooks the possibility(13 more words not shown)
- Cprovides no evidence(13 more words not shown)
- Doverlooks the possibility(10 more words not shown)
- Eattacks Jamal's character(4 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
You can have the legal right to do something and still have a reason not to do it.
Mary hears Jamal say that she can sell her business, then hears him say that she has no right to sell it. That sounds inconsistent if “right” means the same thing both times. But does it? His first claim explicitly concerns her legal right as the owner. His second concerns the suffering of loyal employees. Maybe he is making a moral objection: the law allows this sale, but treating your employees this way would be wrong.
Imagine Jamal saying, “Yes, the government will let you sell. I still think you owe these people better.” There is no contradiction in that position. Mary could disagree about what she owes the employees, but she cannot dismiss the position simply because it distinguishes what is legal from what is right.
What we’re looking for
The flaw question asks where Mary's criticism goes wrong. She needs to consider whether Jamal is talking about two different kinds of right before declaring his statements absurd.
Working the answers
- A
Changing the time of the sale doesn't resolve the apparent conflict. Mary says Jamal acknowledges her legal right to sell whenever she wishes, which includes now. The useful distinction is what kind of right he means, not whether he means today or tomorrow.
- B
Employees' rights might matter in a broader discussion of the sale, but Mary's argument is about whether Jamal has contradicted himself concerning her rights. We can explain why his claims fit together without establishing a separate legal right for the employees.
- C
Jamal already acknowledges the legal right. Mary is entitled to use that shared starting point when discussing whether his statements conflict. Her mistake concerns how she interprets his other statement, not a failure to prove the premise both people accept.
- DCorrect
Legal permission and moral permission are different. Jamal could acknowledge that Mary owns the business and can legally sell it while objecting that she should not hurt loyal employees. Mary treats those two positions as incompatible without considering that distinction.
- E
Mary criticizes Jamal's statements, calling them absurd. She doesn't call Jamal dishonest or otherwise use a personal accusation to discredit his position. An insulting assessment of an argument is still different from attacking the person's character.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.