Logical Reasoning

PT127 · S1 · Q4 Columnist: Donating items to charity

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

Columnist: Donating items to charity may be a sign of generosity, but any generosity it may demonstrate is rarely a permanent virtue, since most donors make donations only intermittently.

Conclusion

Any generosity that donating items to charity may demonstrate is rarely a permanent virtue.

Evidence (since)

Most donors make donations only intermittently.

Evaluate

We'd be trying to argue that, , i.e. someone who has that giving spirit has it all the time.

The author will say,

We might say,

We could also say,

Goal

We want an answer to say,

4.

Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the columnist's argument?

  1. The argument takes for granted

    Out of Scope (most virtuous)

    Since this begins with takes for granted / presumes, we'll treat it like necessary assumption. Did the argument need to assume that "truly generous people are the most virtuous"? No, the argument never talks about who is the most virtuous nor is it designed to prove such an idea. It's only trying to prove that the generous spirit of someone who donates items to charity is usually just a fleeting thing.

    2% picked this

  2. The argument attacks the character

    Trap

    Out of Scope (attacks character) Famous Flaw Bait: Ad Hominem This answer describes a version of the famous Ad Hominem flaw. But this argument doesn't attach the character of anyone. The conclusion is about whether a given action is usually suggestive of a permanent trait. It's not about any people. The premise is about people, but it just says most donors only make donations intermittently. That's not an attack on anyone's character.

    2% picked this

  3. Correct

    The argument takes for granted

    Why this is right

    Since this begins with takes for granted / presumes, we'll treat it like necessary assumption. When we see conditionals on Necessary Assumption, we usually look at the rule it's giving and ask ourselves whether it matches some reasoning move the author made. Only when always indicates a right side idea, so this is saying: character trait present → manifested By contrapositive, if the character trait isn't manifested → it's not present That does seem to match the move from Evidence to Conclusion. The premise is saying "most donors make donations only intermittently", which means "on most days, they're not manifesting their generosity into the concrete action of donating an item". And the author is then thinking that on those days that they're not actually making donations, their trait of generosity isn't present. This basically matches the reasoning move of "Since donors only donate sporadically, their generosity is sporadic (not a permanent trait)." If we were to negate this assumption, it would definitely weaken. We'd be saying, "Hey author, even when you're not actively doing something generous, your generous character trait is still a part of who you are."

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

    86% picked this

  4. The argument generalizes from too

    Famous Flaw Bait

    Famous Flaw Bait: Sampling Bad Evidence Match (too small) This is not a famous Sampling flaw. The evidence is about "most donors", which sounds like a pretty large sample of cases: a majority of the group being talked about.

    2% picked this

  5. The argument takes for granted

    Too Strong (most)

    Since this begins with takes for granted / presumes, we'll treat it like necessary assumption. Did the argument need to assume that "most donors do so out of generosity"? MOST is a super scary word on Necessary Assumption, but it's totally fine if the argument did talk about that Most-Group, and we did talk about "most donors". However, the author said, "Donating may be a sign of generosity". He never committed to the idea that it's usually a sign of generosity, so he hasn't committed to the idea that in most cases the donation is out of generosity. If anything, saying that donors aren't generous helps this author, because he's trying to argue that donors are not permanently-generous people.

    8% 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