Logical Reasoning

PT127 · S2 · Q11 Lance: If experience teaches us

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

Lance: If experience teaches us nothing else, it teaches us that every general rule has at least one exception.

Evaluation

Wow. Frank just blew my mind. He took Lance's rule and redirected it back onto itself, making it blow up. It's almost like if I said, It would be a self-contradiction, since I'm telling you to follow a rule that says don't follow rules. Frank is pointing out that the statement "all universals have an exception" is itself a universal. So, according to that rule, it should have an exception (i.e. a counterexample). A counterexample to "all universals have an exception" is a universal that doesn't have an exception. I think I just made it more confusing by explaining it, but essentially Lance's rule contradicts itself.

Goal

Look for something saying that Frank pointed out how if you follow the logic of Lance's rule, it will invalidate that rule.

11.

Frank's argument is an attempt to counter Lance's conclusion by

  1. demonstrating that Lance assumes the

    Not Circular / Bad Premise Match

    Frank isn't accusing Lance of circular reasoning. Lance doesn't make an argument. He just says one claim, which the question stem calls a conclusion. You can't have a circular conclusion. What he showed instead is that the conclusion is self-contradicting.

    6% picked this

  2. Correct

    showing that Lance's conclusion involves

    Why this is right

    Franks says to Lance, "If we assume your conclusion is true, that every general rule has at least one exception, then there is at least one general without an exception." So he does show Lance that his conclusion is self-contradictory.

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

    91% picked this

  3. showing that no general rule

    Bad Conclusion Match

    Frank's conclusion only only telling Lance to retract his statement. Frank certainly doesn't think that ALL general rules have exceptions, because that's self-contradictory, but he still might believe that SOME general rules have exceptions.

    2% picked this

  4. establishing that experience teaches us

    Bad Premise Match

    Frank doesn't refer to experience at all. Only Lance does. Frank just attacks the internally-contradictory logic of Lance's general rule.

    2% picked this

  5. showing that it has no

    Bad Premise Match

    Frank doesn't discuss any real cases. He's purely hypothetical, pointing out the internal logic of the rule itself.

    0% 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