Logical Reasoning

PT106 · S2 · Q2 The law firm of Sutherlin, Pérez

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 law firm of Sutherlin, Pérez, and Associates is one of the most successful law firms whose primary specialization is in criminal defense cases.

Conclusion (So)

Dalton cannot be a member of Sutherlin, Pérez, and Associates.

Evidence

The firm's primary specialization is criminal defense.

Dalton's primary specialization is divorce cases.

Evaluate

Couldn't a lawyer work at a firm, even if the firm's primary specialty isn't their primary speciality? Some law firms might be known for one thing but still want to have lawyers that can offer services for other things. Maybe SPA is known for criminal defense but former clients ask them for a referral for a divorce attorney and they send them over to ol' Dalton.

Why was the author thinking Dalton can't be a member? Because his primary specialty doesn't match the firm's primary specialty. The author must be assuming that all the lawyers at the firm have the same primary specialty and the firm's primary specialty.

That sort of assumption is the famous Whole to Part flaw. The author is thinking, "If the group has this trait (of specializing in criminal defense), then every member of the group (every lawyer at the firm) has this trait.

Goal

Look for an answer calling out this Whole to Part move or otherwise pointing out that not every lawyer at a firm has to specialize in the same law that the firm specializes in.

2.

The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument

  1. offers in support of its

    Bad Description

    This describes the famous Self Contradiction flaw, which is almost never correct. The two pieces of evidence, the firm's specialization and Dalton's, do not contradict each other. Both can be true at once; in fact, the argument depends on both being true.

    0% picked this

  2. overlooks the possibility that a

    Bad Objection

    Since this starts with fails to consider / overlooks the possibility, we'll ask ourselves whether it weakens to say, "Hey, author, maybe Dalton practices law, but isn't a member of a law firm!" Nope, that wouldn't weaken. The author is trying to prove that Dalton isn't a member of this law firm. That would only prove the author correct. We'd want an answer that says, "overlooks the possibility that a person can be a member of a law firm without sharing the law firm's specialty".

    1% picked this

  3. Correct

    concludes that someone is not

    Why this is right

    Since this is structured, concludes that X on the grounds that Y we'd ask ourselves whether Y matches the evidence and whether X matches the conclusion. Was the evidence saying that Dalton doesn't have a characteristic that a group as a whole has? Yes. Specializing in criminal defense is a characteristic of the firm as a whole. Dalton, who specializes in divorce, lacks that characteristic. Did the conclusion than say that Dalton is not a member of this group? Yes, that's exactly what it says.

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

    95% picked this

  4. takes a high rate of

    Bad Description

    Since this is structured takes X to indicate Y we'd ask whether X matches the evidence and whether Y matches where the author takes it from there. Did we hear about a high rate of success among the members of a group? Sure, we heard the firm has a 90% acquittal rate with criminal defense. Does the argument than conclude that each of the lawyers at the firm is winning at around this 90% rate? No, the conclusion has nothing to do with allocating the successes among the lawyers who work there. The conclusion is just singling out one dude and saying he doesn't work there.

    1% picked this

  5. states a generalization based on

    Sampling

    This describes the famous Sampling flaw, in which a General conclusion derived from evidence about a smaller set of data points. This argument works in reverse. The evidence is about the general group (the firm specializes in defense / the firm has a 90% success rate). The conclusion is about a specific individual.

    3% 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