Logical Reasoning

PT140 · S1 · Q14 Some philosophers explain visual

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

Some philosophers explain visual perception by suggesting that when we visually perceive an object, a mental image of that object forms in our mind.

Conclusion

It can't be the case that visual perception consists of a mental image that forms in our mind.

Evidence

If that were so, it would require something inside us that can see that mental image, and so would its visual perception consist of a mental image inside it, which would then require another viewer and another mental image, and so on and so on. This goes on infinitely, and hence is absurd.

Evaluate

The most basic formal structures in this argument are these:

CONC = rebuttal "X must be wrong"

EVID = the author attempts to show that the implications of a certain claim result in absurdity (there's some fancy Latin term like reductio ad absurdum for this type of argument, "it reduces to absurdity")

Goal

Look for a Conclusion saying "X can't be true / correct", and then Evidence that sounds like like

14.

Which one of the following arguments is most similar in its pattern of reasoning to the argument above?

  1. According to some linguists, many

    Weak Premise Match

    This does have a rebuttal conclusion, and it does have an "implications of logic" beginning to its evidence. However, instead of saying "If Inda-European were the first language, then there would be an absurd chain of requirements", it says "If it were first, there would be an unlikely consequence that we have overwhelming evidence against."

    7% picked this

  2. The claim that any scientific

    Weak Premise Match

    There is a rebuttal conclusion, but the evidence doesn't follow an "implications of logic" trajectory; meaning, it never says "if that view were true, then A would be true" or "but that view requires A". The argument is implicitly arguing with the implications of the claim, but the implications lead to a contradiction, not absurdity (the infinite regress of mental images and inner viewers wasn't a contradiction, it was just a silly thought that isn't likely to be true).

    4% picked this

  3. Correct

    Some historians claim that no

    Why this is right

    This has the rebuttal conclusion, and evidence saying that the implications of the view we're rejecting would be an infinite regress that is absurd. If every theory has a theory that it borrowed heavily from, then how do you ever explain "the 1st theory". If visual perception is really just a mental image forming in our mind, and then we have to visually perceive that mental image, then how does it ever end?

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

    79% picked this

  4. Some engineers define a structure's

    Trap

    Bad Conclusion/Premise Match Word Trap: absurd This conclusion isn't quite a rebuttal; it's not saying "this definition is untrue / incorrect". It's saying the definition is unfortunate. And the evidence doesn't have anything to do with, "if it were true, it would lead to an infinite loop". It's more like, "this definition gives off a misleading impression".

    7% picked this

  5. Some people claim that the

    Bad Premise Match

    This argument does reject a claim in its conclusion, but its evidence does not sound like, "If the claim were true, an absurd infinite loop would result". Instead, the evidence says, "This claim is not accurate. We know things that make it inaccurate."

    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