Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Easy

PT129 S2 Q4 Explanation

Professor: A guest speaker recently

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

TopicsFlaw

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

Start practicing free

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 guest speaker recently delivered a talk entitled "The Functions of Democratic Governments" to a Political Ideologies class at this university. The talk was carefully researched and theoretical in nature. But two students who disagreed with the theory hurled vicious taunts at the speaker. Several others applauded their attempt these days do not foster fair-minded and tolerant intellectual debate.

What this question is testing

Flaw

Conclusion

The professor concludes something huge — that universities, in general, no longer support fair, tolerant debate.

Evidence

One talk. One class. Two rude students. A few who applauded them.

Evaluate

This is the classic small-sample problem. It's like watching one customer be rude in one cafe and concluding that all the cafes in the country have an etiquette problem. Even within that single talk, the rude students were a small minority — most of the audience just sat there.

So the leap is enormous: from "a couple of students at one event" to "universities don't foster fair-minded debate." A correct Flaw answer should name that leap.

Goal

Find the answer that says the conclusion is way too broad for the evidence.

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

The question
4.

The professor's reasoning is flawed in

Answer choices

  1. Bad Description3% picked this

    draws a conclusion based on the professor's own opinion rather than on that of the majority of the

    The professor's argument doesn't turn on whose opinion is being used. The professor reports observable behavior (taunting, applause) and draws a conclusion from it. Whether the majority of students would agree with the professor's interpretation isn't the issue — the issue is whether one incident generalizes to all universities.

  2. Self-Contradiction3% picked this

    is inconsistent in advocating tolerance while showing intolerance of the dissenting

    This answer accuses the professor of advocating tolerance while being intolerant of the dissenting students. But the professor never demands tolerance for the dissenting students — the professor calls their behavior intolerant. There's no inconsistency in saying "those students were intolerant," because criticizing intolerance is not itself intolerant. The flaw is sample size, not contradiction.

  3. Inappropriate Appeals2% picked this

    relies primarily on an emotional

    The professor describes the incident in restrained language ("two students hurled vicious taunts," "several others applauded") and draws a conclusion. There is no emotional manipulation or appeal designed to bypass reasoning. The flaw is statistical (sample size), not rhetorical.

  4. Correct87% picked this

    draws a general conclusion based on too small

    Why this is right

    This is the flaw exactly. The conclusion ("universities these days do not foster fair-minded and tolerant intellectual debate") is a generalization about universities broadly. The evidence is a single incident at one talk in one class at one university — and within that incident, only a handful of students misbehaved. The sample is far too small to support a conclusion about universities in general.

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

  5. Bad Objection5% picked this

    incorrectly focuses on the behavior of the dissenting students rather than relating the reasons

    This says the professor should have explored why the dissenters acted that way. But knowing the reasons wouldn't fix the real problem — that one incident doesn't establish a generalization about all universities. Even with stated motives, the sample is still tiny. The objection misses where the argument actually breaks down.

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