LSAT Explanation PT 20, S4, Q4: Whittaker: There can be no such

LSAT Question Stem

Hudson responds to Whittaker by 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Method of Reasoning question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is A. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

First, let's analyze the structure of the argument in the passage. Whittaker presents a statement claiming that there can be no such thing as the number of medical school students who drop out before their second year, because if they drop out, they never have a second year. This statement is a premise. Hudson then responds to Whittaker's premise by drawing a parallel with an analogy about becoming rich. The structure of this argument is a premise followed by a response using an analogy.

To better understand the argument, let's use a simple example. Imagine a group of people who start a race. Whittaker's reasoning would be like saying there is no such thing as the number of people who quit the race before reaching the halfway point because if they quit, they never reach the halfway point. Hudson's response would be like saying, by that logic, everyone who starts the race will eventually finish because there is no such thing as quitting before reaching the finish line.

Now, let's discuss the question type and what it's asking us to do. This is a Method of Reasoning (MOR) question, which means we need to identify how Hudson responds to Whittaker's argument.

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. Hudson uses the analogy of becoming rich to show that if he uses the same logic as Whittaker, it leads to a preposterous conclusion.

Answer choice (B): Hudson does not cite a specific example that directly counters Whittaker's claim about second-year medical students. Instead, he attacks it through analogy.

Answer choice (C): Whittaker does not use necessary/sufficient reasoning in his statement, therefore Hudson cannot point out such a mistake.

Answer choice (D): Whittaker makes a simple statement without ever acting as if it were false, so Hudson cannot claim that Whittaker says something untrue because Whittaker acts as if it were false.

Answer choice (E): Hudson never claims that Whittaker's use of medical school students is extreme and unrepresentative. Instead, he uses an analogy to show the flaw in Whittaker's reasoning.

In conclusion, Hudson responds to Whittaker's argument by showing that a relevantly analogous argument leads to an untenable conclusion (answer choice A).