Logical Reasoning

PT108 · S2 · Q18 Sid: The sign says

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

Sid: The sign says "Keep off the grass:"

Conclusion

Your statement is false.

rephrase: One person walking across the grass does hurt it.

Evidence

If everyone believed your claim, everyone would walk across the grass, and the grass would die.

Evaluate

Sid is saying that the grass would die from everyone walking across it. But the claim Micki made is that the grass won't die from one person walking across it.

So Sid didn't actually say anything to address Micki's claim.

Sid is arguing, . And then thinking,

But we don't decide whether a claim is true or false based on what the consequences would be if everyone believed it were true (or false).

Goal

Look for an answer saying that Sid isn't addressing the actual truth of Micki's claim. Instead he's talking about the bad consequences that would result if everyone accepted the truth of her claim.

18.

Sid's argument is questionable in that it

  1. attempts to use a statement

    Bad Conclusion Match

    Since this has the structure, attempts to use X to do Y we'd want to check whether X aligns with the evidence and Y aligns with the conclusion (or ideas en route to the conclusion). Did Sid provide as evidence, "a statement about the consequences of actions"? Kind of. The action would be "everyone believing Micki's statement" and the consequences would be "everyone would walk across the grass" and "the grass would die". Is Sid's conclusion trying to disprove a statement about the actions themselves? No, because Sid's conclusion isn't about "everyone believing Micki's statement". Sid's conclusion is "one person walking across the grass does hurt it". The action in the premise is "everyone believing Micki's claim". The action in the conclusion is "one person walking across the grass". So this answer is descriptively false.

    12% picked this

  2. Correct

    treats a statement about the

    Why this is right

    This gets at the disconnect between what Micki was talking about and how Sid responds. She was saying the action [one person walking on grass] doesn't have the consequence of [hurting the grass]. Sid's counterargument is showing that the action of [everyone believing Micki's claim] would have the consequence of [hurting the grass]. So this answer allows us to call out how Sid has drifted from the point at issue. Micki's statement is true or false based on whether the action of one person walking on the grass has the consequence of harming the grass. Sid's counterargument never even addresses that scenario. It addresses what would happen if everyone believed what Micki is saying. When an answer is saying an author treats X as though it were Y, it's basically saying "X and Y are different, but the author was treating them the same". We're saying, "Hey Sid, it's different to talk about whether one person walking on the grass harms it than to talk about whether everyone believing Micki's statement harms the grass. You're responding to the former by talking about the latter, so you must be confusing one with the other."

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

    82% picked this

  3. contradicts itself by treating a

    Famous Flaw Bait: Self-Contradiction

    Answers that describe contradictions are almost always wrong on LSAT. It's very rare for actual contradictions to be present. Sid does not treat the statement "one person walking across the grass doesn't hurt it" as a statement believed by everyone. He's only saying, hypothetically, if everyone were to believe that statement, the grass would die.

    5% picked this

  4. discounts the fact that there

    Bad Objection

    This answer is using normative language, about whether it's right/wrong or justified/unjustified to hurt the grass. This argument is purely causal. We're evaluating whether "one person walking across the grass hurts it". It's a causal claim. We just want to know whether that action leads to that effect. Whether that action is justified / unjustified is a separate conversation.

    1% picked this

  5. attempts to undermine a statement

    Famous Flaw Bait

    Famous Flaw Bait: Ad Hominem Bad Evidence Match This describes a variation of the famous Ad Hominem flaw. Sid does try to undermine Micki's statement, but his evidence doesn't resemble questioning Micki's character. Her character isn't discussed at all in his evidence.

    0% 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