Logical Reasoning

PT114 · S2 · Q8 Books updating the classification

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

Books updating the classification systems used by many libraries are not free—in fact they are very expensive.

Conclusion

These frequent changes in the classification systems are just a ploy by the publishers to make libraries buy their products.

Evidence

Because they're expensive, the only way to sell copies of them is to make the potential buyers believe they need to adopt the most recent system.

Evaluate

This feels like a famous Ad Hominem at first, since we're dismissing a point of view based on the ulterior motive / vested interest of the source.

So the answer may sound like that. But we should also think about other ways to argue the Anti-Conclusion: these changes are not just a ploy to make money.

How could it be that there are legitimate reasons to make frequent changes in the classification systems?

Maybe technology or the publishing industry changes quickly enough that systems need altering or would become much more easy to use by altering?

What about the Premise to Conclusion connection? Can we object to the move from to ?

Sure, aren't all products more or less forced to convince buyers that they need the product? That's how advertising works. Even if a product has value, it might not be obvious to the consumer. When Keurig K-Cups came out, I'm sure people were like, "That looks dumb", until they were convinced they needed that easy and environmentally-reckless a way to make average tasting coffee.

Goal

Find an answer complaining that the author is concluding there's no legitimacy to the new classification systems just because the publishers make money selling them, or an answer explaining why frequent changes might be legitimately justified, or an answer pointing out that to a certain extent the only way to sell any product is to convince buyers that they need your product.

8.

The reasoning above is most vulnerable to criticism because it

  1. claims without providing warrant that

    Out of Scope: unreasonably

    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% picked this

  2. Correct

    concludes that a possible ulterior

    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% picked this

  3. fails to consider that there

    Not the Best Answer

    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.

    8% picked this

  4. concludes that there is no

    Too Strong: no need ever

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

    6% picked this

  5. fails to consider that the

    Not an Objection

    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% 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