Logical Reasoning

PT142 · S2 · Q1 Mary to Jamal: You acknowledge

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

Mary to Jamal: You acknowledge that as the legitimate owner of this business I have the legal right to sell it whenever I wish.

Conclusion

Your statements taken together are absurd.

Evidence

You're simultaneously saying - I have the legal right to sell this business - I have no right to sell this business, since loyal employees will suffer

Evaluate

Mary is trying to catch Jamal in a contradiction, claiming that he's simultaneously saying .

How would we defend Jamal? How could he say, "I'm not contradicting myself!"

He would just make a distinction between the two different senses of "have the right" we're using. He'd say,

Goal

When the same term / concept gets used in two different ways, that's the famous flaw of Equivocation.

The answer might use that word or just otherwise say that Mary is conflating two different senses of "the right".

1.

Mary's reasoning is most vulnerable to the criticism that she

  1. overlooks the possibility that when

    Not an Objection

    This doesn't answer her concern that he is contradicting himself. It would still be a contradiction for him to say "you have the right to sell it whenever you wish, but you have no right to sell it at this time".

    4% picked this

  2. overlooks the possibility that her

    Not an Objection

    If anything, Mary seems like she is thinking about the rights of the employees, since she brings up the negative repercussions that selling the business would have on them. Regardless, this answer doesn't speak to Mary's confusion about two different meanings of "legal right vs. moral right".

    9% picked this

  3. provides no evidence for the

    Not a Flaw

    LSAT will never ask us to present proof of her business license, or anything like that. This answer doesn't have anything to do with calling out the fact that Mary thinks Jamal contradicted himself, even though he didn't.

    2% picked this

  4. Correct

    overlooks the possibility that Jamal

    Why this is right

    Jamal was saying "of course you have the legal right to sell your business whenever you want. But it wouldn't be right for you to sell it, when it would cause your loyal employees to suffer." I might have a legal right to shoot someone that comes into my house without my permission, but someone might still say "you had no right to shoot him" if they mean, "you had no good reason to be that fearful / that aggressive".

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

    84% picked this

  5. attacks Jamal's character rather than

    Wrong Flaw

    This describes the famous flaw of Ad Hominem, but Mary's problem was committing the flaw of Equivocation. She doesn't ever attack Jamal's character.

    1% 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