Logical Reasoning

PT114 · S2 · Q5 Logician: I have studied and

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

Logician: I have studied and thoroughly mastered the laws of logic.

Conclusion (So)

Arguing that I violate the laws of conversation would be like arguing that some physicist violates the laws of physics.

Evidence

I have studied and thoroughly mastered the laws of logic.

Evaluate

LSAC loves to clown this haughty logician, by having him (it's gotta be a him, right?) boast about his logic skillz in a Flaw question.

We accept that this logician has thoroughly studied the laws of logic.

How can we reject his conclusion and argue, saying that you sometimes violate the laws of logic is not like arguing that some physicists violate the laws of physics

When we're evaluating Comparisons and we want to think of objections, most commonly we're just trying to think of some salient difference between the two things being compared.

In this case, is "a logician breaking the laws of logic" like "a physicist breaking the laws of physics"?

No, because it's possible to break the laws of logic. You can be illogical. You have the freedom to do so. (Cable news exists because of that premise.)

Meanwhile, it's not possible to break the laws of physics. They govern our universe always and everywhere.

Goal

Look for an answer complaining about the unfair comparison between being illogical vs. doing something physically impossible.

5.

The reasoning in the logician's argument is questionable because this argument

  1. ignores the fact that our

    Not an Objection

    fails to consider / ignores possibility = the answer choice is offering a supposed Objection. We wouldn't be objecting to his conclusion by saying, "Oh, author, you're forgetting that our concept of physics (i.e. Newton's, then Einstein's ... ) is always changing". Does that attack the conclusion and make it seem like "a logician violating the laws of logic is not like a physicist violating the laws of physics"? Not in any obvious way. The author is just comparing them on the level of, "in both cases, a specialist is breaking the laws of her field". It doesn't seem to matter to him whether those laws are permanent or undergoing constant change.

    2% picked this

  2. presents no evidence that physics

    Not Assumed

    "fails to establish / presents no evidence that" are less typical forms of answer choices describing supposed Assumptions. (the famous forms of Assumption answers are "presumes / takes for granted") We'd ask ourselves, "Did the author need to assume that physics is as difficult to master as logic?" No, the two fields don't need to be identical on that level. The author is only needing to assume that "a specialist breaking a law in logic is similar to a specialist breaking a law in physics".

    1% picked this

  3. fails to rule out the

    Not an Objection

    fails to consider / overlooks possibility = the answer choice is offering a supposed Objection. We wouldn't be objecting to his conclusion by saying, "Oh, author, you're forgetting that it is possible for some physicist to circumvent the laws of physics in everyday life." I mean, yes, that would hurt his conclusion, but we would sound like the craziest lawyer in the courthouse. You can't violate the laws of physics. They are the physical laws of the universe: gravity, electromagnetism, nuclear forces, etc. What we could say is that the author fails to rule out the possibility that some logician could circumvent the laws of logic in everyday life. That's our objection.

    14% picked this

  4. Correct

    treats two kinds of things

    Why this is right

    This is complaining about the unfair comparison. Violating logic differs in an important respect from violating physics, in that the former is possible and the latter is impossible.

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

    82% picked this

  5. has a conclusion that contradicts

    Wrong Flaw

    This refers to the famous Self-Contradiction flaw, which will be a wrong answer choice 99% of the time we see it. If the conclusion were contradicting what was asserted in the premise, then the second sentence would have said something like, So, I have barely even looked at the laws of logic.

    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