LSAT Explanation PT 30, S2, Q2: Raymond Burr played the role of

LSAT Question Stem

The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Flaw question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is E. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

Let's first analyze the argument in the passage. The passage presents a comment made by a prominent lawyer about Raymond Burr, who played the role of lawyer Perry Mason on television. The lawyer acknowledges that although Burr was not a lawyer, his portrayal was so authentic that it feels like they lost one of their own. The author of the passage then concludes that this comment provides appalling evidence that some legal professionals are losing their ability to distinguish fiction from reality. In this argument, the lawyer's comment is a premise, and the author's conclusion is that some legal professionals are losing their ability to distinguish fiction from reality.

To help you understand this argument, let's use a simple example. Imagine a doctor who watches a TV show where an actor plays a very realistic surgeon. The doctor says, "Although not a surgeon, the actor's performance was so authentic that it feels like we lost one of our own." The author of our passage would then argue that this doctor is losing their ability to distinguish fiction from reality.

An "Evaluate" question for this argument could be: "Does the lawyer's comment actually indicate a loss of the ability to distinguish fiction from reality?"

Now let's discuss the question type and answer choices. This is a Flaw question, which asks us to identify the flaw in the argument's reasoning.

a) This answer choice is incorrect because "some" can mean "just one" on the LSAT, so the evidence that "one lawyer believes X" indicates that "some lawyers believe X."

b) This answer choice is incorrect because the author does not attack the lawyer personally. They criticize the lawyer's ability to distinguish fiction from reality based on the lawyer's statement.

c) This answer choice is incorrect because the author does not presume that the lawyer is qualified to evaluate the performance of an actor. The focus is on the lawyer's ability to distinguish fiction from reality.

d) This answer choice is incorrect because it is out of scope. General television depictions of the law are irrelevant to the argument presented in the passage.

e) This is the correct answer. The argument is flawed because it ignores the part of the lawyer's remark that indicates an awareness of the difference between reality and fiction. The lawyer acknowledges that Burr was not a lawyer but played one on TV ("Although not a lawyer..."). The author acts as if the lawyer had not made that distinction and thought that Burr was really a lawyer, leading to the unsupported conclusion about the current state of affairs. There is nothing in the lawyer's statement to suggest that anyone is having any difficulty telling reality from fiction.