LSAT Explanation PT 31, S3, Q5: Logician: I have studied and thoroughly

LSAT Question Stem

The reasoning in the logician's argument is questionable because this argument 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Flaw question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is D. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

In this LSAT problem, the logician argues that since they have studied and mastered the laws of logic, it would be like arguing that some physicist circumvents the laws of physics in everyday life to claim that they sometimes violate the laws of logic in ordinary conversation. The argument's structure consists of one premise (the logician has studied and thoroughly mastered the laws of logic) and one conclusion (arguing that the logician sometimes violates the laws of logic in ordinary conversation would be like arguing that some physicist circumvents the laws of physics in everyday life).

To help understand this argument, let's use a simple example. Imagine a chef who has mastered the art of cooking. The chef claims that saying they sometimes make bad dishes in ordinary cooking would be like saying a mathematician makes mistakes in basic calculations in everyday life.

An "Evaluate" question for this argument could be, "Are the laws of logic and the laws of physics similar enough to make this comparison valid?"

This problem is a Flaw question, asking us to identify the issue in the logician's argument. Let's analyze each answer choice:

a) This answer choice is irrelevant to the argument. The argument is comparing the logician's mastery of logical laws to a physicist's adherence to physical laws, not the changing conceptions of physical laws.

b) The difficulty of mastering physics or logic is not relevant to the argument. The focus is on the comparison between violating the laws of logic and circumventing the laws of physics.

c) This answer choice is tempting, but it misses the point. The laws of physics are considered unbreakable, so the possibility of a physicist circumventing them is not a valid concern. The issue lies in the comparison between the two disciplines.

d) Correct answer. The logician's argument treats the laws of logic and the laws of physics as if they are similar, but they differ in important respects. The laws of logic are rules that we can choose to follow or not, while the laws of physics are natural laws that we have no choice but to follow. This faulty comparison is the flaw in the argument.

e) The conclusion does not contradict the premise in the argument. The premise states that the logician has mastered the laws of logic, and the conclusion compares this to a physicist's adherence to the laws of physics. There is no direct contradiction.

In conclusion, the correct answer is D, as the logician's argument treats the laws of logic and the laws of physics as if they do not differ, when in fact they differ in important respects.