Logical Reasoning

PT104 · S4 · Q21 The argument does which one of

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

Words like “employee,” “payee,” and “detainee” support the generalization, crudely stated, that words with the ending -ee designate the person affected in the specified way by an action performed by someone else.

Evaluate

At first the author is considering a blanket rule that goes like, .

Then she considers absentee and realizes there's no someone else who is absenteeing the absentee.

(Whereas there was a someone else who is employing an employee, someone else who is paying the payee, someone else who is detaining the detainee).

So the author adds a little caveat, another qualification to the rule, so that absentee would no longer qualify: .

Let's look for .

21.

The argument does which one of the following in dealing with the counterexample it offers?

  1. Provides additional support for the

    Out of Scope: misanalysis

    The author thinks that absentee is a valid counterexample to the original "crudely stated" generalization. That's why he amends his rule in order to resolve the "impasse". He volunteered the counterexample so he would be accusing himself of misanalyzing his own rule.

    13% picked this

  2. Dismisses the counterexample on the

    Out of Scope: dismisses

    The author takes the counterexample head-on; he doesn't dismiss it. He actually modifies the rule in order to be able to rule out such counterexamples.

    1% picked this

  3. Concedes that the proposed counterexample

    Bad 2nd Half

    The first part matches, but the author never maintains the original crudely stated version of the rule, by saying, "hey, every rule has an exception, amirite?"

    9% picked this

  4. Correct

    Narrows the scope of the

    Why this is right

    The author adds a qualifier to his original, crudely stated generalization. By doing so, he narrows the scope of the generalization. Originally, it applied to all words that end in -ee. Now, it applies only to those words that end in -ee that are also referring to one party in a two-party transaction. Absentee, the putative (i.e. supposed counterexample), is no longer relevant, since absentee does not refer to a two-party transaction.

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

    57% picked this

  5. Shows how replacing the notion

    Out of Scope: spurious

    "Spurious" means fake, inauthentic, illogical. Spurious reasoning may sound true, but it is flawed. Spurious accusations are baseless, exaggerated claims. The author respects "absentee" as a counterexample; that's why he re-writes the rule in order to exclude absentee. He doesn't consider it a spurious counterexample to the original, crudely stated generalization. "Spurious" is the easiest way to get rid of this answer, since the first half might make your brain melt. I think it's actually nonsense, masquerading as a "I dunno; it sounds complicated, maybe I should pick it" trap answer. What is the difference between "being affected in a specified way by an action" and "having someone's action directed at oneself"? When those show up in the paragraph, they're functionally interchangeable. "Payee" = the specified action of paying, being done by person Y, is affecting person X. "Payee" = Y's action of paying is directed at X.

    19% 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