LSAT Explanation PT 39, S2, Q2: Any course that teaches students how
LSAT Question Stem
A flaw in the reasoning of the argument is that 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
First, let's analyze the argument in the passage. The argument can be broken down as follows:
Premise 1: Any course that teaches students how to write is one that will serve them well in later life.
Premise 2: Some philosophy courses teach students how to write.
Conclusion: Any student, whatever his or her major, will be served well in later life by taking any philosophy course.
Notice that the conclusion is making a claim about all philosophy courses based on the information about some philosophy courses. This is the main flaw in the argument. To help you understand this flaw, consider the following example: Some fruits are red (e.g., apples). Therefore, all fruits are red. This conclusion is clearly flawed, as there are many fruits that are not red (e.g., bananas).
Now, let's come up with an "Evaluate" question for this argument: "Do all philosophy courses teach students how to write?" The answer to this question would help us determine if the argument is valid or not.
The question type of this problem is a Flaw question, which asks us to identify the flaw in the reasoning of the argument. Let's discuss each answer choice:
a) fails to specify adequately exactly how a course can teach students how to write
- This answer choice is not relevant to the flaw in the argument. The argument's flaw is about generalizing from some to all, not about how a course teaches students how to write.
b) draws a weaker conclusion than is warranted by the strength of its premises
- This answer choice is incorrect because the argument actually draws a stronger conclusion than is warranted by its premises. The premises mention "some" philosophy courses, while the conclusion claims "any" philosophy course.
c) presumes, without providing justification, that what is true of a whole must also be true of each of its constituent parts
- This answer choice is the opposite of the flaw we're looking for. The argument presumes that what is true of some parts (some philosophy courses) must be true of the whole (all philosophy courses).
d) fails to consider the possibility that some students in certain majors may be required to take a philosophy course
- This answer choice is not relevant to the flaw in the argument. The flaw is about generalizing from some to all, not about the requirements of certain majors.
e) draws a conclusion about all cases of a certain kind on the basis of evidence that justifies such a conclusion only about some cases of that kind
- This answer choice accurately describes the flaw in the argument. The conclusion generalizes from some philosophy courses to all philosophy courses, which is not justified by the premises.
Therefore, the correct answer is E.