Logical Reasoning

PT120 · S4 · Q14 Franklin: The only clue I

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

Franklin: The only clue I have as to the identity of the practical joker is the handwriting on the note.

Conclusion (So)

The joker is apparently someone besides Miller.

Evidence

The only clue we have to far as to the identify of the practical joker is the handwriting on the note.

I was assuming it was Miller, who hates me, but the handwriting on the note isn't hers.

Evaluate

This author is trying to Solve a Causal Mystery. If we're doing Flaw and we see any sort of Explain a Curious Fact argument, we want to be on the lookout for bad Causal reasoning.

Bad causal reasoning is essentially just being too sure about one possible explanation for a curious fact, when other possible explanations potentially exist.

Here, the Curious Fact would be, "Who's the practical joker?", and the author's Explanation is "someone besides Miller", since the handwriting doesn't match hers.

But alternate explanations abound -- it could have still been Miller if she disguised her handwriting or asked someone else to supply the handwriting, so that her friend Franklin didn't get wise.

Goal

Look for some answer saying the author was too quick to disqualify Miller's involvement based on the mismatching handwriting, when there are possible ways to reconcile Miller being the joker with the handwriting on the note not matching hers.

14.

Which one of the following provides the strongest grounds for criticizing Franklin's reasoning?

  1. Correct

    It fails to consider the

    Why this is right

    This has always irked me as an answer, just because the singular vs. plural (the joker vs. multiple jokers) seems weirdly expressed. But when we see fails to consider / overlooks the possibility, we can ask ourselves "does the idea after that seem like a potential objection to the author's argument?" If we said, "Hey, author — what if there's more than one practical joker?", would that go against his thinking? Yes, it would, because that would allow Miller to still be involved. If she has a co-conspirator, then maybe THEY are the one who wrote the note (Miller knew her handwriting would be too obvious). We can think of this answer as purely saying, "the author failed to consider a different possible interpretation of what's going on. He's sure the joker is someone besides Miller, but it's possible that "the joker" is actually two people, Miller and her accomplice.

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

    58% picked this

  2. It fails to indicate the

    Wouldn't Ever Be Correct

    First of all, there aren't multiple handwriting samples being compared to each other, so this answer is addressing something out of scope. There's one handwriting sample (the joker's note), and there's Franklin's mental image of what he thinks Miller's handwriting looks like this. Secondly, we wouldn't fault an argument's logic for failing to specify a degree, unless the argument was already using numbers and the logic hinged on that degree. Whether we toss out one random degree, "Handwriting samples have to be 88% or better in terms of similarity in order to be considered from same source" vs. any other random degree "Handwriting samples have to be 96% or better to qualify as the same" it doesn't make a difference. We don't know to what degree the note differed from Franklin's mental picture of Miller's handwriting anyway, so an exact degree wouldn't tell us anything. Flaw answer choices never ask for specific measurements or dates or names or definitions.

    11% picked this

  3. It provides no explanation for

    Contradicted

    It did provide some explanation for why Miller would be a suspect: "she has always been jealous of me". The author never identifies anyone as the prime suspect, but to the extent that we'd presume it's Miller, the author did provide some explanation why.

    1% picked this

  4. It provides no explanation for

    Not an Objection

    Yes, it's true the author provided no explanation for why there's only one clue, but that's not the author's job. It's not his fault there's only one piece and so it's not his burden to explain why.

    1% picked this

  5. It takes for granted that

    Opposite Logic

    The author's argument was like this: If .... Then ... the handwriting The joker isn't didn't match Miller's Miller This answer choice presents that logic in "illegal light switch" mode. If .... Then ... the handwriting had The joker was matched Miller's Miller

    30% 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