Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT136 S2 Q13 Explanation

Brooks: I'm unhappy in my job

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

Brooks: I'm unhappy in my job, but I don't know whether I can accept the risks my job.

Morgenstern: The only risk in quitting is that of not finding another job. If you don't find one, you're going to be pretty unhappy. But you're as well just quit.

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
13.

Morgenstern's argument is flawed in that

Answer choices

  1. Correct69% picked this

    fails to take into account that unhappiness can vary in intensity

    Why this is right

    How is it an objection to point out that unhappiness can vary intensity or significance? We can say, "Hey, Morganstern, sure he's already unhappy, but he would be way more unhappy if he were jobless." This is a Relative vs. Absolute flaw. Morganstern is thinking about unhappiness in absolute yes/no terms, while Brooks could easily counter that "yes, I'd be unhappy either way, but I'd be way more unhappy if I were jobless."

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

  2. Not "Circular Reasoning"12% picked this

    relies on an assumption that is tantamount to assuming that the

    When an answer choice says that the argument concluded a restatement of a premise, or that the author "assumed the truth of the conclusion", it's referring to a Circular Argument. These answers are almost always wrong. If there are any unique premises that don't sound like a restatement of the conclusion, we wouldn't call it circular. The author includes a premise that is a conditional rule "the only thing you're risking is not being able to find another job". The fact that this idea is not a restatement of the conclusion, "You might as well quit", shows that this is not a circular argument.

  3. Doesn't Mischaracterize7% picked this

    mischaracterizes what Brooks

    Morganstern characterizes Brooks as being already unhappy in his current position, but that is a proper characterization of what Brooks said.

  4. Not About Risk11% picked this

    conflates two different types of

    The author does conflate two different types of "unhappiness" (being unhappy in your job and being unhappy because you can't find a job), but there aren't two different senses of "risk" happening. It is only used once and it's used in the sense of "potential downside to an action".

  5. Not "Sampling"1% picked this

    reaches a generalization on the basis of a

    The conclusion is not a generalization; it's a specific claim about Brooks quitting his job. This answer choice describes the famous flaw Sampling.

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