Logical Reasoning

PT136 · S2 · Q25 When a group is unable

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

When a group is unable to reach a consensus, group members are often accused of being stubborn, bull-headed, or unyielding.

Conclusion

If you're mad at a fellow group member because the group can't agree on something, and you want to call them some label that will stick, you should use "unyielding".

Evidence

It'll be pretty undeniable that this person has not yielded on this issue, so it will be undeniable that they are "unyielding" on this issue.

Evaluate

What weird advice for an LSAT argument to offer: "The most enduring and provable insult is unyielding!"

On Method questions, we're trying to characterize the type of evidence or type of journey we took to get to the conclusion, and the correct answer almost always involves one of these concepts: Analogy Implications of Logic Rule Out Alternatives Call Out Dubious Assumption Raise Overlooked Information (Counter)example to Principle Make a Distinction Define a Term Alternate Explanation

This argument seems to involve some "ruling out alternatives", since the author is suggesting that we do not go with "stubborn or bull-headed".

Goal

Look for an answer possibly saying that the author endorsed one option over a couple others by distinguishing it from the other two in terms of its undeniable truth.

25.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the argumentative technique employed above?

  1. rejecting a tactic on the

    Bad Conclusion/Premise Match

    The author disparages all three tactics (bull-headed, stubborn, unyielding) on the grounds that they can seem abusive and don't help the group resolve the stalemate. However the author's conclusion is endorsing a tactic (unyielding) on the grounds that it does have a factual basis.

    3% picked this

  2. rejecting a tactic on the

    Bad Conclusion/Premise Match

    The author disparages all three tactics (bull-headed, stubborn, unyielding) on the grounds that they can seem abusive and don't help the group resolve the stalemate. It only says they "rarely" help the group move forward. "Virtually impossible" is a little stronger than "rarely". The author's main argument is endorsing a tactic (unyielding) on the grounds that it's an easy label to defend.

    3% picked this

  3. conditionally advocating a tactic on

    Bad Premise Match

    The author does conditionally advocate a tactic: "If you want your accusation to stick .... choose unyielding". But she does so not because unyielding is identified as being less offensive but because it's hard for one's opponent to deny that they haven't yielded, and thus are being unyielding.

    14% picked this

  4. conditionally advocating a tactic on

    Bad Premise Match

    The author does conditionally advocate a tactic: "If you want your accusation to stick .... choose unyielding". But she does so not because unyielding is identified as being more likely to help the group reach consensus (on that level, 'unyielding' is lumped in with 'bull-headed and stubborn' as being unlikely to help achieve consensus) but because it's hard for one's opponent to deny that they haven't yielded, and thus are being unyielding.

    11% picked this

  5. Correct

    conditionally advocating a tactic on

    Why this is right

    The author does conditionally advocate a tactic: "If you want your accusation to stick .... choose unyielding." In her evidence she's saying, "appeal to the fact that the opponent has not yielded." She's saying that we can call someone unyielding based on the premise that the person has not yielded. Then she says that "if one acknowledges that a person has not yielded, then one cannot deny that the person is unyielding". This is saying, if you accept my premise that X has not yielded, then you cannot (with consistency) deny that person X is unyielding on this issue.

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

    70% 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