Logical Reasoning

PT128 · S2 · Q22 Journal editor: Our treasurer advises

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

Journal editor: Our treasurer advises that because of our precarious financial situation, we should change from a paper version to an online version only if doing so will not increase the cost of publication.

Conclusion (should)

We should change our journal to an online version.

Evidence (since)

If changing to online then we would increase the → shouldn't change cost of publication to online

A benefactor will cover the costs of conversion, and once the conversion is made, the cost of publication per issue is much lower.

Evaluate

Any time we're doing Flaw and see conditional logic (only if), we should start thinking there's a 90% or better chance they're going to mess up the conditional logic and test us on the #1 famous flaw, Necessary vs. Sufficient.

When we see the "only if" in the first sentence, we can mentally or physically diagram what this conditional relationship is saying. We know that "if" indicates an idea that goes on the left of the arrow but that "only if" indicates an idea that goes on the right of the arrow, so we'd get

Should change to online → doesn't increase cost

At this point, we would expect the author to apply this conditional rule in a backwards or opposite fashion.

OPPOSITE Bob says we shouldn't change to online. Thus, he must think that it would increase cost.

REVERSAL Bob says It doesn't increase our cost to switch. Thus, we should change to online.

The argument we read did the illegal reversal. It establishes that the cost of publication will not go up (since a donor will cover the cost of converting to online and the per issue costs will be lower with online).

And then it thinks we can therefore conclude that we should switch to online.

Goal

We can look for an answer saying, "not-increasing costs" was Necessary in order for us to make the switch, but it wasn't identified as being Sufficient to guarantee we should make the switch.

After all, there may be other things to consider (some of them may also be necessary). There might be other considerations, like

If it would cause us → shouldn't switch to lose any readers to online

If it would cause us → shouldn't switch to lose any sponsors to online

22.

The journal editor's argument is flawed in that it

  1. Correct

    treats meeting a necessary condition

    Why this is right

    This names the (#1) famous flaw Necessary vs. Sufficient, in which an author presents a conditional logic premise, Should change to online → Won't increase Costs and then reasons via that rule in an illegal backwards or opposite fashion. This author argued that, "Since it won't increase costs, we should change to online". That is switching "won't increase costs" from the Necessary (right) side to the Sufficient (left) side. Or in conversational terms, the author is acting like as long as it's doesn't raise costs that's a good enough reason to switch. In doing so, the author is failing to consider other possible reasons (besides an increase in costs) that we might not want to switch.

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

    70% picked this

  2. takes for granted that publishing

    Not Assumed: the reason

    This author isn't assuming anything about the causal backstory of why they're in a precarious financial situation. It could be because people don't want to buy a physical paper version. It could be that minimum wages have increased which raised their overhead. It could be that sponsors pulled out, etc. The author is assuming that publishing an online version will not make our financially precarious position worse, but she doesn't need to believe the reason we're financially struggling is because we have a paper version.

    3% picked this

  3. overlooks the possibility that an

    Not an Objection

    The author is overlooking that an online version would have disadvantages over a paper version. That would be an objection, because that would help us argue against the conclusion. But if we say, "Hey, author --- the online version has other advantages, too", that just strengthens her conclusion that we should switch to online.

    2% picked this

  4. fails to rule out the

    Not an Objection

    Does it hurt the author to say, "Hey, author -- even if we change to online, we'll still be in a financially precarious position"? Not really, because the author was never selling us on switching to online as a solution to our financial problem. The author was thinking that we can't make the switch if it would be a financial burden, but she isn't arguing that we should make the switch because it will be a financial solution.

    21% picked this

  5. bases its conclusion on the

    Not Inappropriate Appeal

    This refers to one of the top 10 famous flaws, Inappropriate Appeal (to Emotion, Fear, or Dubious Expertise). Are any of the evidentiary claims an attribution to someone else's beliefs? Yes! We are using the testimony of the treasurer as one of the premises. Is that treasurer speaking outside their field of expertise? No. They are talking about what financial position this organization is in, which is precisely a treasurer's field of expertise.

    4% 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