Logical Reasoning

PT124 · S3 · Q24 Professor: A person who can select

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

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.

Conclusion

Meaningful freedom can’t be measured by just the sheer number of options.

Evidence

It’s more relevant how much variety is provided by the options. For example, a choice from five disparate drinks would have more freedom than a choice from fifty very similar drinks.

Evaluation

The author supports a general claim about freedom and choices with a specific thought experiment comparing a choice between 5 different things and 50 similar things.

Goal

We might see something like,

24.

The professor's argument proceeds by

  1. Correct

    supporting a general principle by

    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.

    61% picked this

  2. drawing a conclusion about a

    Bad Conclusion Match / Bad Premise Match

    This gets the specific → general move backwards. The conclusion was a general principle and it was based on a particular case.

    9% picked this

  3. supporting its conclusion by means

    Not Analogy

    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.

    26% picked this

  4. claiming that whatever holds for

    Trap

    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.

    0% picked this

  5. inferring one general principle from

    Bad Premise Match

    The conclusion is more general than the evidence. According to this answer choice, though, the evidence is more general than the conclusion.

    3% 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