Logical Reasoning

PT107 · S3 · Q24 Mr. Nance: Ms. Chan said that she

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

Mr. Nance: Ms. Chan said that she retired from Quad Cities Corporation, and had received a watch and a wonderful party as thanks for her 40 years of loyal service.

Conclusion

At least one of them is not telling the truth.

Evidence

Ms. Chan said she retired from Quad Cities Corporation, but a colleague of hers said Ms. Chan will be gone for much of next year on business trips, working harder than ever, which clearly doesn't sound like retirement.

Evaluate

Given ... all these premise facts, How could we still argue ... neither of them is not telling the truth? (i.e. how can we argue that they both are telling the truth?)

Well do the statements contradict?

Is it possible that Ms. Chan is retiring from Quad Cities Corporation, yet she will still be gone for much of next year on business trips and is now working harder than ever?

Sure! Maybe she's retiring from Quad Cities and going into business for herself. That would involve business trips, potentially, and entrepreneurship definitely involves working harder than ever.

Mr. Nance seems to be thinking that Ms. Chan said she's retiring, as in hitting the stage of life past which she will no longer work for a living.

But Ms. Chan just said "she's retiring from Quad Cities". You can retire from a job without going into retirement.

Goal

Since this argument is using two different meanings of "retiring", we could accuse it of committing the famous (but rarely seen) Equivocation flaw.

Ms. Chan is using "retiring" to mean . Mr. Nance is hearing it to mean "entering the retirement phase of life".

24.

Mr. Nance's reasoning is flawed because it

  1. is based in part on

    Not an Objection

    "Hearsay" is evidence you heard from some third party. It's true that this argument involves a premise that says, "I overheard a colleague of hers say ... X". But there are two issues with picking this answer: 1. It's not inherently flawed to base an argument in part on hearsay. If you have a responsible conclusion like, "So assuming what the colleague said is true, then ", then you can use hearsay as part of your argument. It's flawed when people treat hearsay as fact, but this argument never does that, leading into #2. 2. The author isn't leaning on what he overhead as evidence; he's not treating it as true. He isn't saying, "Chan will be gone next year on business trips, working harder than ever." He is entertaining the idea that the colleague might not be telling the truth. There's nothing wrong with arguing like this: "Ms. C said X. Her colleague said Y. X and Y contradict. Thus, at least one of them is not telling the truth."

    27% picked this

  2. criticizes Ms. Chan rather than

    Not Ad Hominem

    The author never criticizes Ms. Chan, so this answer is just descriptively false. This answer sounds like the famous Ad Hominem flaw, in which someone rebuts an argument by talking about the source (usually pointing out an ulterior motive or conflicting past behavior) rather than addressing the ideas.

    2% picked this

  3. Correct

    draws a conclusion based on

    Why this is right

    The author is equivocating on the meaning of "retiring / retirement". Ms. Chan used it as a verb that means, "I'm leaving a job I've been at for a long time". Mr. Nance starts talking about "retirement" in a context that means "done with working for the rest of my life". Pretty soon (or recently, depending on when you read this) Lebron James will retire from the NBA. That doesn't mean he's entering retirement. He's probably still going to travel on business trips and work harder than ever. The author's argument is predicated on the idea that "if she says she's retiring, but her colleague says she's doing stuff that doesn't sound like retirement, than at least one of them is wrong." But retiring without being in retirement is entirely possible. The author is equating two different meanings of "retiring" in order to pretend like there's some contradiction here.

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

    61% picked this

  4. fails to consider that Ms.

    Not an Objection

    Since this answer begins with fails to consider / ignores the possibility, we can ask ourselves whether the idea that follows would Weaken. Can we say, "Hey, author -- Ms. Chan's colleague may have been deceived by her"? No that wouldn't weaken. If the colleague has been deceived, then the colleague is passing on info that isn't true. Hence, the conclusion is correct to think that "at least one of these people is not telling the truth". Similarly, if Ms. Chan deceived the colleague by not telling the truth, then the conclusion would again be correct.

    8% picked this

  5. fails to infer that Ms.

    Never a Flaw

    There's no such thing as fails to infer. There's no conclusion that an author is supposed to make, so we can't ever criticize them for failing to make a certain conclusion. We only criticize them based on the conclusion they do make, unless it is fully proven by the evidence presented.

    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