LSAT Explanation PT 27, S4, Q21: Words like "employee," "payee," and "detainee"

LSAT Question Stem

The argument does which one of the following in dealing with the counterexample it offers? 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Method of Reasoning question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is D. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

First, let's analyze the argument in the passage. The argument begins by stating a generalization about words ending in "-ee" - they designate the person affected by an action performed by someone else. This is the premise. Then, the argument presents a counterexample, the word "absentee," which doesn't seem to fit the generalization. The argument then resolves this issue by modifying the generalization: if a word with the ending -ee refers to one party in a two-party transaction, it refers to the party at which the other party's action is directed. This modified generalization is the conclusion.

To make this more understandable, consider the following example: words ending in "-er" generally refer to someone who performs an action (e.g., "runner," "writer"). However, "liver" doesn't fit this pattern. We could modify the generalization by saying that if a word ending in "-er" refers to a person, it refers to someone who performs an action.

Now, let's discuss the question type and the answer choices. The question type is a Method of Reasoning (MOR) question, asking us to identify what the argument does in dealing with the counterexample it offers.

a) This answer choice is incorrect because the argument doesn't claim that the force of the counterexample derives from a misanalysis of the example. The argument accepts the counterexample and modifies the generalization accordingly.

b) This choice is incorrect because the argument doesn't dismiss the counterexample based on its insignificance compared to supporting evidence. Instead, the argument modifies the generalization to accommodate the counterexample.

c) This choice is incorrect because the argument doesn't concede that the counterexample is an exception and maintain the generalization on the grounds that all generalizations have exceptions. Instead, it modifies the generalization to resolve the issue.

d) This is the correct answer. The argument narrows the scope of the generalization by adding a qualifier about two-party transactions. This modification makes the counterexample of "absentee" no longer a problem for the generalization.

e) This choice is incorrect because the argument doesn't show the counterexample to be spurious (false). Instead, it acknowledges the counterexample and modifies the generalization to resolve the issue.