Method of Reasoning
Help Questions
LSAT Logical Reasoning › Method of Reasoning
The argument's reasoning is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it:
Assumes that what holds for each part must hold for the whole
Infers that a claim is false because it has not yet been proven true
Bases a sweeping generalization on a small sample of divisions
Concludes that a report is inaccurate because the reporters are biased
Presumes a causal relation on the basis of temporal order alone
Explanation
The argument assumes that if each division grows, the company's overall profit must grow, committing a composition fallacy. It does not rely on temporal order or allegations of bias. Nor does it complain about lack of proof or a small sample.
Which of the following most accurately describes the argumentative strategy?
Claiming that two solutions are mutually exclusive when they could be combined
Inferring that a policy is unnecessary because a different policy has been proposed
Rejecting a proposal because it would not completely solve the problem it addresses
Arguing that what is true of individual products must be true of the supplement market as a whole
Concluding that a measure will backfire by asserting, without evidence, that it will increase the problem
Explanation
It commits a perfectionist standard, dismissing the proposal because it would not eliminate misuse entirely. The other descriptions do not match, as the argument neither predicts backfire, commits a composition fallacy, posits exclusivity, nor relies on an alternative policy.
Which of the following best describes the pattern of reasoning in the argument?
Inferring that a claim is false because its consequences would be undesirable.
Arguing that because two events coincide, one caused the other.
Drawing a universal conclusion from an incomplete list of examples.
Treating a characteristic that is necessary for a result as though it were sufficient for that result.
Establishing a conclusion by eliminating all alternative explanations.
Explanation
The reasoning takes being a risk-taker, a necessary trait of highly successful entrepreneurs, as if it were sufficient to predict success. It neither eliminates alternatives nor relies on a mere coincidence or undesirable consequences. It also does not generalize from examples.
The argument proceeds by doing which of the following?
Drawing a causal conclusion from a mere correlation
Eliminating alternative possibilities to infer that the remaining option is correct
Redefining a key term to fit the evidence
Appealing to the authority of an expert metallurgist
Attacking the motives of those who question the object's origin
Explanation
It infers the conclusion by ruling out competing options, a process of elimination strategy. It does not cite authority, attack motives, or redefine terms. Nor does it argue from correlation to causation.
The argument proceeds by doing which of the following?
Inferring a causal claim from an accidental temporal sequence
Reasoning from an uncontroversial definition to a controversial empirical claim
Misrepresenting opponents' position in order to refute a weaker version of it
Concluding that an option is unacceptable merely because it has some costs
Showing that two apparently different policies lead to the same unacceptable result
Explanation
It attacks an exaggerated version of the critics' view, a classic straw man. The conclusion is then drawn against that distorted position. The other choices describe strategies not exhibited here.
The argument proceeds by doing which of the following?
Drawing an analogy between engagement with films and engagement with novels to argue that the criticized trait is not present
Questioning the critics' motives rather than their reasoning
Redefining 'attention span' so that the critics' claim becomes false by definition
Offering statistical evidence to refute an opposing view
Identifying all possible causes of decreased reading and eliminating each in turn
Explanation
It treats sustained viewing of films as sufficiently similar to reading novels and uses that analogy to reject the charge of diminished attention. That is what A describes. The other answers mention statistics, redefinition, exhaustive causal elimination, or ad hominem, none of which occur.
The argument proceeds by doing which of the following?
Equating statistical correlation with causation to derive a prediction.
Establishing the conclusion by elimination of all alternatives.
Appealing to a precedent that is irrelevant to the present case.
Inferring a generalization about a population from a sample claimed to be representative solely because it is large and geographically varied, while ignoring selection bias.
Concluding that a proposal is popular because it has influential supporters.
Explanation
It treats a large, geographically varied sample as automatically representative while ignoring self-selection from first responders, matching B. The argument does not eliminate alternatives or rely on influence or precedent. It also does not hinge on correlation-causation.
The argument's reasoning can best be described as which of the following?
Relying on a representative random sample and then strengthening the claim through replication
Deriving a necessary condition from a merely sufficient one
Equivocating on a key term to reach a misleading conclusion
Generalizing from a self-selected sample and dismissing contrary evidence by attacking its source rather than its merits
Carefully controlling for confounding variables before drawing a conclusion
Explanation
The argument bases its conclusion on a biased, volunteer online poll and then rejects a contrary study by impugning its funding source instead of addressing methodology. That is what A describes. The other choices suggest careful sampling, conditional logic, or equivocation, none of which occur.
The argument proceeds by doing which of the following?
Using a counterexample to demonstrate that a general moral rule has exceptions.
Arguing that because a practice is traditional, it must be morally correct.
Drawing a distinction between legality and morality to undermine a normative claim.
Appealing to legal authority as decisive support for a moral conclusion while dismissing opposing considerations.
Accepting a moral principle and then showing that it yields contradictory directives in a single case.
Explanation
It treats legality as settling a moral issue and brushes aside critics on that basis. The other options involve tradition, internal contradiction, separating law from morality, or counterexamples, none of which occur.
Which of the following best describes how the argument attempts to justify its conclusion?
Dismissing expert testimony by citing a single anecdote
Arguing that because something has been used by many over time, it is guaranteed effective
Using a definition of 'safe' that renders the conclusion true by definition
Inferring a normative conclusion from purely legal premises
Equating natural origin with safety and treating lack of synthetic processing as sufficient to dismiss safety concerns
Explanation
The reasoning treats being natural and unprocessed as enough to establish safety, equating 'natural' with 'safe.' That is exactly what E describes. The other choices mischaracterize the move as definitional, anecdotal, legal, or a simple appeal to tradition, none of which the passage does.