LSAT Explanation PT 19, S4, Q21: Not all tenured faculty are full

LSAT Question Stem

The flawed pattern of reasoning exhibited by the argument above is most similar to that exhibited by which one of the following? 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Parallel Flaw question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is C. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

In the passage, the argument is structured as follows:

Premise 1: Not all tenured faculty are full professors.

Premise 2: Every faculty member in the linguistics department has tenure.

Conclusion: Not all of the faculty members in the linguistics department are full professors.

The structure of the argument is flawed because it assumes that the relationship between tenured faculty and full professors applies to the linguistics department in the same way it applies to the whole university. This is a whole/part problem, and we cannot infer anything about the linguistics department from the premise about tenured faculty and full professors in general.

An "Evaluate" question for this argument would be: "Are there any tenured faculty members in the linguistics department who are not full professors?"

Now, let's discuss the answer choices.

The question type is Parallel Flaw (PF), which asks us to identify the answer choice that exhibits a similar flawed pattern of reasoning as the argument in the passage.

a) This answer choice is not flawed. It follows a valid chain of reasoning, concluding that some office buildings are not modern office towers. This does not parallel the flawed reasoning in the passage.

b) This answer choice is not flawed. It contains a valid conditional inference, concluding that not every massive building is forbidding. This does not parallel the flawed reasoning in the passage.

c) This answer choice exhibits the same whole/part flawed reasoning as the passage. It states that some buildings designed by famous architects are not well proportioned, and all government buildings are designed by famous architects. Therefore, it concludes that some government buildings are not well proportioned. The flaw is that we don't know which buildings designed by famous architects are not well proportioned, so we cannot infer anything about a specific category of their buildings (government buildings). This answer choice is the correct one.

d) This answer choice contains a different flaw. It changes the conditional statement from "some" to "all," concluding that all poorly designed public buildings were originally intended for private use. This does not parallel the flawed reasoning in the passage.

e) This answer choice contains a valid inference, concluding that buildings can be impressive even though they are not built of stone. This does not parallel the flawed reasoning in the passage.

In conclusion, the correct answer is C, as it exhibits the same whole/part flawed reasoning as the argument in the passage.