Logical Reasoning

PT146 · S3 · Q12 Advertisement: When you need a will

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

Advertisement: When you need a will, consulting a lawyer is much more expensive than using do-it-yourself software.

Conclusion

When you need a will, a lawyer's expert advice is always worth paying for.

Evidence

(When you need a will, getting lawyer's advice is much more expensive than do-it-yourself software, and either method will get you a valid will.)

But ... you pay extra money to tailor your will to your particular circumstances (similar to how you pay a doctor to get an expertly customized prescription, not just any valid prescription).

Evaluate

In terms of Missing Links, it feels like the author is saying, .

But this argument seems more like it might be going the way of Defending Against Objections. The conclusion is really strong. In every single case where someone needs a will, a lawyer's expert advice is worth paying for?

This reminds me of whether it's worth getting a tax preparer for one's income tax return. It's not worth it for people who can fill out a 1040 EZ .. they just have their W-2, the standard deduction, and that's pretty much it.

Similarly, with the medical analogy, is it always worth paying a doctor for customized advice? No. If I'm on my period and have a headache, I'm just going to take some ibuprofen or acetaminophen. I know that both of them are valid prescriptions and that's good enough. I don't need to pay a doctor $150 to get a custom diagnosis, because I have a very straightforward case with a simple diagnosis.

(This is my most USA culturally biased explanation yet, between 1040 EZ, W2 and paying to go to the doctor!)

We can imagine that some wills would be so simple and straightforward that the valid will from the do-it yourself software would be good enough.

Goal

Look for an answer linking "tailoring to particular circumstances" to "always worth the extra money", or an answer ruling out the objection that some people would have simple enough wills that they don't really need to pay for an expert's advice.

12.

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument presented in the advertisement?

  1. A lawyer’s knowledge and level

    Trap

    Unknown Comparison Too Strong: at least as Our author is assuming that a lawyer's expertise goes beyond that of software in all cases, much as a doctor's expertise goes beyond "some valid prescription". But our author doesn't need to assume any direct head to head comparison. If la lawyer's knowledge and expertise are only 90% as complex as a doctor, the argument is still fine.

    3% picked this

  2. Correct

    Do-it-yourself software cannot tailor a

    Why this is right

    When we negate this, does it weaken? If we say that do-it-yourself software can tailor a person's will to a particular set of circumstances just as well as a lawyer can, does that weaken? Definitely! That was supposedly the advantage we were willing to pay more for, if we went with the human lawyer rather than the software. This argument was assuming a difference. It stated that lawyers could customize and insinuated that software couldn't customize, but it never established that idea. That's why it's correct to say this idea was assumed. And using our Negation Test, if software can customize as well as a lawyer can, then that would badly weaken the argument.

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

    92% picked this

  3. Many people who prepare their

    Unnecessary

    This would strengthen, but it isn't necessary. If we negate it, it doesn't weaken. If everyone who uses software is satisfied, the author can still argue that paying for a lawyer would be worth it because you'd be more satisfied. She acknowledged that software will provide a valid will, so it's possible she'd acknowledge that software users will be satisfied, just not maximally satisfied.

    2% picked this

  4. In the majority of cases,

    Too Strong: majority

    The concept of "most" is wrong 99% of the time on Necessary Assumption. When we negate it, we go from thinking something is true at least 51% of the time to thinking it's true at most 49% of the time. Do it matter whether valid wills adequately meet the needs of people 51% vs. 49% of the time? Nope. Just like (C), this answer is talking about adequate / satisfied. Our author is fine with thinking that valid wills leave someone satisfied / adequately meed their needs. She can concurrently think that a customized will from a lawyer would be even better.

    1% picked this

  5. There is some way for

    Out of Scope

    This is lost in the analogy, which is not essential to the author's argument about whether someone who needs a will would always be wise to spend the money on a lawyer.

    2% 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