A leading critic of space

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

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

A leading critic of space exploration contends that it would be wrong, given current technology, to send a group of explorers to Mars, since the explorers would be unlikely to survive the trip. But that exaggerates the risk. There would be a well-engineered backup system at every stage of the long and any given stage if such a backup system is in place.

What this question is testing

Flaw

Your task

Describe the reasoning error the argument actually commits.

Common trap

Answers that name a real logical flaw the argument doesn't actually make.

Winning move

Articulate the gap in the reasoning yourself, then match it to the choice that describes that gap.

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

The question

The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that

Answer choices

Correct58% picked this
infers that something is true of a whole merely from the fact that it is true of
Why this is right
Is the conclusion saying that something is true of a whole? Yes, although it's tricky to see. The author is saying that explorers are likely to survive the whole trip to Mars. Is the evidence saying that the explorers are likely to survive each part of the trip? Yes, this is where we really see this answer has a chance -- the main premise is that "at any given stage, they're likely to survive". Each stage might have a survival probability over 50%, but that doesn't mean that the whole trip has a survival probability over 50% This answer describes the famous flaw Part vs. Whole.
Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
58%
Bad Conclusion Match18% picked this
infers that something cannot occur merely from the fact that it is
Does the conclusion say that something cannot occur? Not at all. It says that explorers are likely to survive the trip to Mars. We can stop reading the answer at this point.
18%
Bad Conclusion Match4% picked this
draws a conclusion about what must be the case based on evidence about what is
Does the conclusion say that something must be the case? Not at all. It says that explorers are likely to survive the trip to Mars. We can stop reading the answer at this point.
4%
Bad Conclusion Match15% picked this
infers that something will work merely because it
Does the conclusion say that something will work? Nope. It says that explorers are likely to survive the trip to Mars. We can stop reading the answer at this point.
15%
Bad Premise Match5% picked this
rejects a view merely on the grounds that an inadequate argument has been
The author does reject a view: "That exaggerates the risk". But is the evidence saying "the leading critic's argument is flawed in this way"? No. The evidence is introducing the author's own premises about the backup system and the high likelihood of surviving each stage. Our author never attacks the rationale of the leading critic. This answer describes the famous flaw known as Unproven vs. Proven False.
5%

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