Logical Reasoning

PT106 · S1 · Q19 The postmodern view involves the

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

The postmodern view involves the rejection of modern assumptions about order and the universality of truth.

Conclusion (it follows that)

We inhabit a world full of irregular events, in which there are no universal truths.

Evidence

The postmodern view involves rejecting modern assumptions about there being order to the universe or universal truths.

The grand theories of the modern era are now sees as limited by the contexts of their time periods.

The belief in order has given way to a belief in the importance of irregularity and chaos.

Evaluate

This argument appears to just be acting as though the postmodern view is reality.

Why should we accept postmodernism's description of the world? So what if they say the universe doesn't have order or universal truths. What makes them the experts on reality?

Even within the context of this argument, we can see that stuff we happen to believe at one time (such as the grand theories we used to believe) we might later come to doubt.

So who says that it will be any different when it comes to postmodernism? Maybe there will be an intellectual movement after postmodernism that says that the stuff postmodernists were saying was wrong and was just limited by the social and historical context in which it was elaborated?

There's a small pattern of arguments that have a He Said / She Said structure, where the author seems to arbitrarily side with one view over the other, without justifying it.

Grand Theories say that there are universal truths and order (there's an RC passage on these in PT82 that gives examples like Freudians thinking that everything comes back to repressed feelings about our moms, or Marxists thinking that everything comes down to the elites exploiting the working class).

Postmodernists say that there aren't universal truths or order.

The author is acting like we live in the world described by the postmodernists, but who said they're correct?

Goal

Let's look for an answer saying that the author is treating the Opinion of the postmodern view as though it's Fact. The author is ignoring that belief systems change over time, so there's no reason to think that the current one (postmodernism) is the correct one. And the author is arbitrarily siding with one view over another, without justifying that preference.

19.

The argument's reasoning is questionable because the argument

Correct
Infers that something is the
Why this is right
It's one of the Semi-Famous flaws to go from Opinion to Fact. That's what seems to happen here. Postmodernists belief that there are no universal truths. Our belief in order has been replaced by a belief in irregularity and chaos. Then the author goes from talking about those beliefs to concluding, "The world is full of irregularity and there are no universal truths". Since this answer is structured, infers that X because Y we want to check whether X matches the conclusion and Y matches the evidence. Is the conclusion saying that "something is the case"? Yes, it says it is the case that we inhabit a world full of irregularity and lacking any universal truths. Is the evidence saying that "people believe it to be the case that the world is full of irregularity and lacks universal truths"? Yes.
Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
82% picked this
Uses the term “universal” ambiguously
Not Equivocation
This answer alludes to the famous flaw Equivocation, in which the same word/concept is used two different times to mean two very different things. This answer is almost always wrong. The word "universal" was used consistently to mean, "applying in all cases".
4% picked this
Relies on the use of
Not Inappropriate Appeal
This answer alludes to the famous flaw Inappropriate Appeal to Emotion, in which the argument tries to make its case not with logic but with pity / sympathy / fear. This answer is almost always wrong. There aren't any emotional terms in this argument.
2% picked this
Uses the term “order” ambiguously
Not Equivocation
This answer also alludes to the famous flaw Equivocation, which is almost always wrong. The word "order" was used consistently to mean, "conforming to regular patterns or rules". Order vs. disorder Patterns vs. chaos Regularity vs. irregularity It's speaking about order in that context.
4% picked this
Fails to cite examples of
Unrelated to Conclusion
This would be complaining about a premise. One of the premises is suggesting that grand theories of the modern era believed in some universal truths (We know that because the 3rd sentence talks about how we used to believe in order but no longer do, so the 2nd sentence must have been covering how we used to believe in the existence of universal truths, but no longer do). We can definitely be annoyed at the fact that the author failed to make clear that "grand theories" was a reference to when we used to believe in universal truths. But our complaint would simply be that. We wouldn't start complaining, "Oh, yeah? We don't believe you. List out some examples of modern theories that believed in universal truths." We accept their premises. We don't ask for the receipts. This would have nothing to do with objecting to the conclusion, which is based on postmodern views, not on grand theories.
8% 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