Logical Reasoning

PT110 · S3 · Q10 Philosopher: People are not intellectually

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

Philosopher: People are not intellectually well suited to live in large bureaucratic societies.

Conclusion (therefore)

People can find happiness, if at all, only in smaller political units such as villages.

Evidence

People are not intellectually well suited to live in large bureaucratic societies.

Evaluate

There seem to be a few main issues with this argument:

1. the evidence is talking about what types of living arrangements we're intellectually suited to, while the conclusion is talking about what types of living arrangements could allow us to be happy.

The author seems to be assuming that, .

2. the author never establishes that we are intellectually suited to smaller political units like a village.

The author seems to be assuming, .

3. the author seems to be offering this False Choice between large bureaucratic societies or villages.

She seems to be assuming, . Maybe there are other possibilities as well?

Goal

This question stem is pre-loaded with takes for granted, so we can evaluate every answer choice like we're doing Necessary Assumption.

We can even call this a Necessary Assumption (disguised as Flaw) if we want to.

10.

The reasoning in the philosopher's argument is flawed because the argument takes for granted that

  1. Correct

    no one can ever be

    Why this is right

    This is a very strong idea, which is unnerving, but when Necessary Assumption gives us a conditional answer, we think about how it looks as an If / Then move, and compare that to the author's reasoning. No one can ever be B in a place like A That could be represented as, "If you're in A, you're not B", or "If you're B, you're not in A" "If you're in a society where you're not intellectually well suited to live, then you can never be happy". That does seem to match the author's reasoning. She went from saying "people aren't intellectually suited in big bureaucracies", to thinking, "people won't be happy in big bureaucracies", and thus concluding, "The only place we have a chance to be happy is in smaller political units."

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

    72% picked this

  2. the primary purpose of small

    Too Strong: primary purpose

    The author doesn't need to commit to the #1 purpose of small political units. It's irrelevant to the argument. The author only cares about small political units insofar as it is a type of society in which people might be more intellectually well suited to live, and thus might be more likely to find elusive happiness. The fact that happiness might be found in such a village doesn't mean that the author thinks the #1 purpose of the village is to make people happy.

    2% picked this

  3. all societies that are plagued

    Too Strong: all

    The author used the words large and bureaucratic in the same sentence to describe the noun "societies". That doesn't mean she's assuming a 100% universal connection between bureaucracy and large-ness. If we negated this and said, "There is at least one small society that is plagued by excessive bureaucracy", would that weaken the argument? No, that has no effect. As a reasoning move, this answer looks like this: plagued by excessive bureaucracy ? large This doesn't match the move from Premise to Conclusion. It's just linking together language from within the Premise.

    5% picked this

  4. anyone who lives in a

    Too Strong: anyone

    The author's conclusion is not promising happiness, if we were to go to small political unit like a village. She just says, "If there's any place to find happiness, it's there". If we say, "The beers we have, if any, are in the downstairs fridge", then we haven't promised any beer. Similarly, this author hasn't promised any happiness. She just think we have a chance of finding it in a village. As a reasoning move, this answer looks like this: live in small political not-too-bureaucratic ? can be happy This doesn't match the move from Premise to Conclusion. It's just linking together wording from within the Conclusion.

    19% picked this

  5. everyone is willing to live

    Too Strong

    Too Strong: everyone Out of Scope: willing Nothing in the argument is dealing with people's willingness to live in any of these places. If we negate this and say, "There is at least on person who isn't willing to live in a village or other small political unit", that won't hurt the argument. The author will just be like, "Cool. Well that person won't be happy, because they're not intellectually suited to where they're choosing to live."

    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