Books updating the classification

Answer choices

1. A

   Out of Scope: unreasonably1% picked this

   claims without providing warrant that the books are

   The author said they were very expensive, which doesn't necessarily mean unreasonably expensive. Even if we accepted those two as being equivalent, this answer would be saying, "the flaw is that the author assumes one of her premises is true". That's never something we see on LSAT. Flaws are reasons why the evidence (if true) nonetheless fails to prove the conclusion.

   1%
2. B

   Correct85% picked this

   concludes that a possible ulterior motive must be the

   Why this is right

   This is the ad hominem answer. It's saying, "the author thinks that these new classification systems are motivated solely by profit motive, but it's possible that the new systems are motivated by other factors as well, like genuine innovations or updates in the classification systems." Because the author says "these changes are just a ploy to sell products", we can say that the author thinks that there is one and only one motive.

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

   85%
3. C

   Not the Best Answer7% picked this

   fails to consider that there may be potential buyers of these books

   This answer actually does have some legitimacy to it, I think. Since the author's conclusion is "these frequent updates in the books are just a ploy to make libraries buy products", then it's technically an objection to say, "Nuh-uh ... they're also a ploy to make bookstores buy their products". However, I think they're killing this for two reasons: 1. I think they want us to hear "the classification systems used by many libraries" in a way that implies (via common sense) that this is specifically something libraries would use, so of course there aren't going to be other buyers. 2. Saying, "nuh-uh ... they're also a ploy to make bookstores buy their products" isn't disagreeing with the substantive part of the author's conclusion. Her argument is about whether or not it's a shameless money-grab. The part about whom the publishers are grabbing money from is not really crucial to the reasoning or the flaw.

   7%
4. D

   Too Strong: no need ever6% picked this

   concludes that there is no need ever to change

   The author certainly didn't conclude that there is never any need to change. He's merely saying that "frequent" changes seem sketchy.

   6%
5. E

   Not an Objection1% picked this

   fails to consider that the libraries cannot afford to buy every

   Saying that "libraries cannot afford to buy every book they want" would only Weaken an author if she had believed that "libraries can afford to buy every book they want". This author certainly didn't seem to be assuming anything as strong as that.

   1%