Logical Reasoning

PT103 · S2 · Q15 Editorialist: Society is obligated

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Editorialist: Society is obligated to bestow the privileges of adulthood upon its members once they are mature enough to accept the corresponding responsibilities.

Conclusion

There is no reason not to grant 17 year old citizens all the privileges of adulthood.

Evidence

Society is obligated to grant all the privileges of adulthood upon its members, once they are mature enough to accept the corresponding responsibilities.

(so this author is assuming that 17 year olds are mature enough to accept the responsibilities of adulthood?)

Science has established that physiological development is completed in most people by age 17. This maturing process has been completed by most 17 year olds.

Evaluate

Wait, wait, wait. According to the conditional rule in the first sentence, we need to establish that 17 year olds are .

And the author is just saying that most 17 year olds have completed the process of physiological development.

Those are miles apart.

Goal

The author is abusing two different sense of the word "mature enough".

"Mature enough" in the principle is referring to one's intellectual and moral capacities. Are you responsible, wise, smart enough to handle adulthood.

The "maturing process" the author refers to in the final sentence is just talking about going through puberty physically.

This is a famous flaw called Equivocation, when you use the same term or concept in two very different ways.

15.

The editorialist's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the ground that it

  1. assumes what it is trying

    Wrong Flaw

    This describes the famous Circular reasoning flaw, in which the evidence restates the conclusion or assumes the truth of the conclusion. The conclusion is that "there is no reason not to grant 17 year olds the privileges of adulthood". Was there a premise that also said "we should grant 17 year olds the privileges of adulthood"? No. So it's not circular.

    16% picked this

  2. too hastily reaches a general

    Wrong Flaw

    This describes the famous Sampling flaw, in which an argument relies on a sample that is too small, or potentially biased / unrepresentative. Is the conclusion general? Sure, it's about all 17 year olds. Is the evidence a few examples of 17 year olds? Nope.

    10% picked this

  3. Correct

    equivocates with respect to a

    Why this is right

    To equivocate is to be deliberately misleading with language. Any time we see an Equivocation flaw, it will mean the author was "cheating" by using the same word in two completely different senses. This answer is usually wrong, but if you can find an idea and define it two different ways, then go for it! 1st use of "Mature" --- is someone grown up enough intellectually and morally 2nd use of "Mature" --- is someone done with the physiological process of developing

    Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    61% picked this

  4. too readily accepts a claim

    Wrong Flaw

    This describes the famous Inappropriate Appeal (to Authority) flaw, in which the evidence cites and relies on an opinion that isn't shown to be qualified on the issue at hand. The author cites the opinion of "science", but they are definitely qualified to weigh in on when physiological development is complete. Science wouldn't be a good source for ascertaining whether someone is intellectually or morally complete, but physiology is definitely in its area of expertise.

    8% picked this

  5. ignores the fact that some

    Not an Objection

    Does it hurt the argument to say that "some people are mature at age 16"? Nope. By the author's logic, she would say go ahead and grant them the privileges of adulthood, too. That doesn't go against her conclusion in any way because she never said "Only give the privileges of adulthood to 17 year olds!"

    4% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free