Logical Reasoning

PT133 · S1 · Q11 Meyer was found by his

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

Meyer was found by his employer to have committed scientific fraud by falsifying data.

Decision

Let's go ahead and revoke Meyer's PhD

Evidence

Even though we looked into it and found out that he didn't falsify any scientific data for his doctoral thesis here, he was recently discovered by his employer to have done so there.

Evaluate

If you did nothing wrong while you were in college, but then your college decided to disown you once you did something bad later in life, then what is the principle guiding their behavior?

Goal

Let's look for something like,

11.

Which one of the following university policies most justifies the decision to revoke Meyer's PhD?

  1. Anyone who holds a PhD

    Bad Premise Match

    This answer is correctly set up to let us conclude that some "should have their PhD revoked", which is the conclusion we're trying to justify. But the premise half of this answer doesn't match. Meyer was not found to have committed fraud during his PhD, only at his current employer.

    4% picked this

  2. No PhD program at the

    Bad Conclusion Match

    This isn't a rule that lets one derive "we should revoke the PhD". This is a rule about who gets admitted, so it would only let you justify a conclusion that sounded like, "Thus, we should not admit Meyer into a PhD program."

    1% picked this

  3. Any University of Williamstown student

    Bad Conclusion Match

    This isn't a rule that lets one derive "we should revoke the PhD". This is a rule about who gets dismissed from the university, so it would only let you justify a conclusion that sounded like, "Thus, we should dismiss Meyer from the university."

    1% picked this

  4. Correct

    Anyone who holds a PhD

    Why this is right

    This is a rule that lets us conclude that "we should revoke the PhD". Does it apply to our boy Meyer? Does he hold a PhD from U of Will? Yes. Was he found to have committed scientific fraud? Yes. Since this rule applies to him, it tells us he will have his PhD revoked, which justifies our conclusion. The language of this rule does not specify when the scientific fraud must take place, so it's just a timeless sense of "if someone is (ever) found to commit scientific fraud".

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

    91% picked this

  5. The University of Williamstown will

    Bad Conclusion Match

    This isn't a rule that lets one derive "we should revoke the PhD". This is a rule about who gets hired, so it would only let you justify a conclusion that sounded like, "Thus, we should not hire Meyer at the U of Will."

    3% 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