Logical Reasoning

PT106 · S2 · Q4 Whittaker: There can be no such

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

Whittaker: There can be no such thing as the number of medical school students who drop out before their second year, because if they drop out, they never have a second year.

Whittaker's argument

There can be no number of medical school students who drop out before their second year, because if they drop out, they never have a second year.

Hudson's response

Hudson runs Whittaker's reasoning on a parallel case: by your reasoning, I cannot help becoming rich, since there's no such thing as my dying before my first million is in the bank. The conclusion ("I cannot help but become rich") is obviously absurd, which exposes the reasoning as broken.

Evaluate

Hudson's technique: build an argument with the same form as Whittaker's, on a different topic, and show that this analogous argument produces an obviously bad conclusion. Since the form leads to absurdity in the parallel case, the same form is suspect in Whittaker's original case.

Goal

Find the answer that describes Hudson's tactic: showing a relevantly analogous argument leads to an untenable conclusion.

4.

Hudson responds to Whittaker by

  1. Correct

    showing that a relevantly analogous

    Why this is right

    This is exactly Hudson's move. He builds an argument with the same form as Whittaker's — about an event that, by Whittaker's logic, can't be counted because it presupposes its own non-occurrence — and shows that this analogous argument leads to an absurd conclusion: that Hudson cannot help but become rich. Since the parallel argument's conclusion is untenable (people can clearly die without becoming millionaires), the form of reasoning behind it must be flawed in Whittaker's original case too.

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

    89% picked this

  2. citing a specific example to

    Bad Description

    Hudson does not cite a specific example to counter a general claim. He doesn't, for instance, name a particular dropout to refute Whittaker's claim about counting. Instead, he constructs a parallel argument about a different topic (his own death and millionaire status). That's an analogy, not a counterexample.

    3% picked this

  3. pointing out that Whittaker mistakes

    Bad Description

    Hudson doesn't accuse Whittaker of mistaking a necessary situation for a possible one. He shows the form of Whittaker's reasoning fails by demonstrating it in a parallel case. The error he exposes is structural, not a confusion about modal categories like necessity vs. possibility.

    4% picked this

  4. claiming that what Whittaker says

    Bad Description

    Hudson doesn't claim Whittaker is acting inconsistently with his own assertions. There's no charge of hypocrisy or behavioral contradiction. The critique is purely about the structure of the reasoning.

    2% picked this

  5. showing that Whittaker’s argument relies

    Bad Description

    Hudson doesn't claim Whittaker's case is extreme or unrepresentative. Hudson's objection isn't that the medical-school case is unusual — it's that the form of reasoning behind it produces absurd conclusions when applied to other cases. The critique is about the reasoning, not the example chosen.

    2% 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