Logical Reasoning

PT112 · S1 · Q10 Cotrell is, at best, able

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

Cotrell is, at best, able to write magazine articles of average quality.

Conclusion (avg quality = opinion)

Cotrell can at best write articles of average quality.

Intermediate conclusion

Cotrell must have plagiarized the few articles submitted by him that are of superior quality.

Evidence (since)

Cotrell is incapable of writing an article that is better than average.

Evaluate

This is certainly a weird argument. The author is trying to prove that Cotrell is a mediocre/poor writer, and the most compelling evidence for that are these articles submitted by Cotrell that are of superior quality?

That makes no sense. How are superior quality articles evidence that Cotrell is an average to poor writer?

The author says, "Because Cotrell plagiarized those articles". To which we should react, "Oh? How do you know Cotrell plagiarized them?"

To which the author says,

This should make us feel like we're right back at the start, because this is a Circular argument. Of the 10 famous flaws, Circular might show up the most in answer choices, although it's almost never correct. So enjoy this rare treasure. :)

It refers to an argument in which a premise restates the conclusion or requires the conclusion to be true. In this argument the premise restates the conclusion, .

Goal

Look for an answer choice calling out the Circular Reasoning or otherwise making the complaint that the author seems unfairly confident that Cotrell plagiarized these superior articles. Her only premise for thinking he plagiarized the good ones is her pre-conceived notion that he's not capable of writing superior articles.

10.

The argument is most vulnerable to criticism on which one of the following grounds?

  1. It simply ignores the existence

    Doesn't Ignore

    We could definitely say that this author "too hastily rejects the existence of potential counterevidence" (by groundlessly assuming that it's plagiarism, not counterevidence). But we can't say the author ignored its existence. She took it head-on and addressed it, telling us her explanation for of what its existence means (the existence of this supposed counterevidence shows that Cotrell has plagiarized some good articles because he couldn't write them himself).

    16% picked this

  2. It generalizes from atypical occurrences.

    Doesn't Generalize Not Sampling

    It would be fair to call these superior articles submitted by Cotrell "atypical occurrences" in the context of this discussion. The author says that Cotrell's articles are numerous but the superior ones are few. However, "generalizing from atypical occurrences" (one of the 10 Famous Flaws, Sampling) would mean that the argument sounded like, "These few articles submitted by Cotrell are of superior quality. Thus, Cotrell's work must usually be of superior quality". Our author clearly wasn't making that move. She was going the opposite way with her conclusion.

    7% picked this

  3. Correct

    It presupposes what it seeks

    Why this is right

    This is calling out the Circular Reasoning flaw, in which the author's evidence restates the conclusion or requires it to be true. Common phrasings for Circular: - conclusion is a restatement of a premise - the purported evidence for the conclusion is merely a restatement of that conclusion - assumes what it sets out to prove - presupposes what it seeks to establish - presumes the truth of the conclusion The first two are saying the author "restates the conclusion" in the evidence. The latter three are saying the author "assumes the conclusion" at some point. Oddly, this argument is an example in which the conclusion is literally restated as a "Since" premise. But the two styles of answers are functionally equivalent. Authors are always assuming their premises are true. So if your evidence involves restating your conclusion, then you're assuming the truth of your conclusion.

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

    66% picked this

  4. It relies on the judgment

    Out of Scope

    Out of Scope: experts Not Inappropriate Appeal There aren't any experts cited anywhere in the argument, so we can't match this on any descriptive level. This answer describes one of the 10 Famous Flaws, Inappropriate Appeals (to emotion, or to dubious authority).

    0% picked this

  5. It infers limits on ability

    Bad Evidence Match

    Since this answer is structured like, infers X from Y we should check whether X matches a conclusion and Y matches the evidence. Does the author conclude "a limit on ability"? Sure. The conclusion says that "Cotrell's ability to write articles is limited to being average quality at best". Does the evidence cite a few isolated lapses in performance (i.e. a few separate cases of poor performance)? No, the evidence cites a few isolated cases of superior performance (and then wishes those away with circular logic).

    11% 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