Logical Reasoning

PT134 · S1 · Q16 The view that every person

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

The view that every person is concerned exclusively with her or his own self-interest implies that government by consent is impossible.

Conclusion

Social theorists who believe that, "People are concerned only with their self-interest" evidently believe that, "Aspiring to democracy is futile".

translation: if you think "People only care about themselves", then you believe "we're not gonna get democracy"

Evidence

You can't get democracy, unless you have a government by consent. And, the view that "People only care about themselves" imply that you can't get a government by consent.

Evaluation

Okay, this was terrible. The most important thing to notice would be that what we're trying to prove in the conclusion is a conditional statement about someone's beliefs.

Valid inference: Mark is a 3-time pig racing champion. Samika had dinner with Mark. So Samika had dinner with a 3-time pig racing champion.

Invalid inference: Mark is a 3-time pig racing champion. Samika knows she had dinner with Mark. So Samika knows she had dinner with a 3-time pig racing champion.

Why is the 2nd one invalid? Because we don't know if Samika actually knows that Mark is a 3-time pig racing champion. We know it, but she might not. (He might not bring it up on a first date)

Similarly, we know, from having read these premises, that if you believe "People only care about themselves", then you have logically committed yourself to the idea that government by consent is impossible, which would make democracy impossible.

But you might not realize those implications/consequences of your "people only care about themselves" belief.

So it's not right to say that if you believe the first thing, you also believe that "democracy is impossible'. You might not realize that the latter is an inference that can be derived from the former.

Goal

Look for an answer explaining that the author is presenting a logical chain of beliefs, and then illicitly assuming that someone else is aware of this logic chain of beliefs.

16.

The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that the argument

  1. Correct

    infers merely from the fact

    Why this is right

    The author shows how "democracy is futile" is a logical consequence (implication) of the belief that "people are only concerned about themselves". But the author can't conclude with certainty that anyone who has that latter belief knows / understand / believes all the logical consequences of that belief.

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

    73% picked this

  2. infers that because something is

    Trap

    Bad Premise Match / Not "Whole to Part" The conclusion is saying something is true of "each social scientist who believe X", but the premise doesn't say "something is true of the entire group of social scientists who believe X".

    3% picked this

  3. infers that because something is

    Bad Evidence Match

    This answer describes the famous Part vs. Whole flaw, so if we are familiar with that flaw, we might simply look at this argument and say, "No, that was definitely not a Part to Whole move". Otherwise, we'd see that this answer is structured, infers that because X .... Y That means that X should match the Evidence and Y should match the Conclusion. Does the Evidence have a claim that says "something is true of each individual person belonging to a group"? Nope. This is the evidence: 1. the view that "we're all consumed with self-interest" implies that it's impossible to have government by consent 2. Democracy is not possible in the absence of government by consent. Neither one of those claims is saying that "something is true of each individual person belonging to a group". Since the evidence part of this answer doesn't match the actual evidence, it can't be correct. The conclusion half of this answer is also struggling, because saying that "social scientists who believe X evidently also believe Y" is not saying that something is true of a group as a whole. This answer is describing an argument that would sound like this: "Each cheerleader on the squad has too little money to afford to print a new banner. Thus, the cheerleading squad has too little money to afford to print a new banner." Or to make it sound slightly more like this argument, "Each social theorist on the committee believes that aspiring to democracy is futile. Therefore, the committee believes that aspiring to democracy is futile."

    17% picked this

  4. attempts to discredit a theory

    Not "Ad Hominem"

    The author isn't discrediting anyone. We may think that democracy is so worth fighting for that this paragraph is a critique, but that's our evaluative filter, not the speaker's. This author can be interpreted as neutrally, dispassionately laying out the connections between ideas and saying that "if you believe X, you believe Z". There's nothing accusatory about it.

    2% picked this

  5. fails to consider that, even

    Bad Premise / Conclusion Match

    This objection is targeting an argument that said, "Charlie concluded X, because he was assuming that Y was true. Since X turned out to be false, it must be that Y was false too." That doesn't match this argument at all. The language of this answer is the reverse of the classic Unproven vs. Proven False flaw, to which we would object, "you're failing to consider that, even if an assumption/premise is false, the conclusion may nonetheless be true."

    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