Professor: A person who can select

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

TopicsMethod

Keep going in LSAT Lab

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

Free to start

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Stimulus

Professor: A person who can select a beverage from among 50 varieties of cola is less free than one who has only these 5 choices: wine, coffee, apple juice, milk, and water. It is clear, then, that meaningful freedom cannot be measured simply by the differences among the alternatives is also a relevant factor.

What this question is testing

Method

Your task

Describe how the argument proceeds — the technique it uses to reach its conclusion.

Common trap

Answers that describe a method the argument doesn't actually use.

Winning move

Track the role each statement plays, then match that to the choice describing the same moves.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question

24.

The professor's argument proceeds

Answer choices

Correct62% picked this
supporting a general principle by means of
Why this is right
The conclusion is a general principle: freedom can’t be measured just by number of options. It’s supported by an example. If we measured freedom just by number of examples, we would think that choosing from 50 colas is a freer decision than choosing from 5 mixed beverages. But we don’t think that.
Skill tested: Method · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
62%
Bad Conclusion Match / Bad Premise Match9% picked this
drawing a conclusion about a particular case on the basis of
This gets the specific → general move backwards. The conclusion was a general principle and it was based on a particular case.
9%
Not Analogy25% picked this
supporting its conclusion by means of
This one is tempting, but this is an example not an analogy. An analogy consists of two specific situations that share some general principle. This is an analogy: “Just as marathoners don’t run full marathons for practice the week of their race, so LSAT students shouldn’t take full practice tests during the week of their test”. Both specific situations (marathon / LSAT) are analogous because of the underlying principle that you shouldn’t overexert yourself right before the real deal. The 50 colas vs. 5 different drinks is not an analogy between two specific situations. It is one specific scenario, and it’s used to introduce a conclusion that is completely general in nature.
25%
Trap1% picked this
claiming that whatever holds for each member of a group must hold for
Part vs. Whole / Bad Premise Match / Bad Conclusion Match This describes the Part vs. Whole flaw, but the argument doesn’t have those features. It does say, “Since you can see in this situation that freedom can’t be measured purely by number of choices, then freedom in any situation can’t be measured purely by number of choices.” But Part vs. Whole is about member of a group vs. group, not this situation vs. any situation.
1%
Bad Premise Match3% picked this
inferring one general principle from another, more
The conclusion is more general than the evidence. According to this answer choice, though, the evidence is more general than the conclusion.
3%

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