Logical Reasoning

PT155 · S1 · Q13 Philosopher: As many prominent physicists

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

Philosopher: As many prominent physicists have suggested, energy is merely a theoretical construct.

Conclusion (Thus)

Physical objects must be theoretical constructs.

Evidence (since)

All physical objects are composed purely of mass and energy. Many prominent physicists suggest that energy is merely a theoretical construct, and the theory of relativity says that energy and mass are essentially the same thing.

Intermediate Conclusion

So mass must be a theoretical construct.

Evaluate

Since we're Recycling a Concept, "theoretical construct" appears in the evidence and the conclusion, we should be on high alert for the two Famous Flaws that do that: Sampling and Part vs. Whole.

This argument is basically saying,

That's Part to Whole. Just because the parts (energy and mass) have a certain property (theoretical construct) doesn't mean that the collective whole (physical objects) also has that property.

There is an intermediate conclusion being drawn by saying,

So we could spend some time thinking about that reasoning move, but given that we've found one of the ten Famous Flaws, it would be unlikely if they were testing something other than that.

Goal

Let's look for an answer describing the Part to Whole flaw, or let's otherwise look for an objection that lets us saying, .

13.

The philosopher's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on which one of the following grounds?

  1. It fails to consider whether

    Not an Objection

    When Flaw answers start with fails to consider / overlooks the possibility, we can ask ourselves whether the idea that follows would weaken or could be used as an objection. If we said, "Hey, author -- there are other things that are also composed purely of mass and energy", that wouldn't weaken at all. We're only weakening if we can suggest that "physical objects aren't theoretical constructs" (or if we're targeting the intermediate conclusion and suggesting that "mass is not a theoretical construct").

    1% picked this

  2. Correct

    It overlooks the possibility that

    Why this is right

    When Flaw answers start with fails to consider / overlooks the possibility, we can ask ourselves whether the idea that follows would weaken or could be used as an objection. This answer would work as an objection: "Hey, author -- something (physical objects) may lack a feature (being a theoretical construct) even if it is composed purely of things (energy and matter) that have that feature (being theoretical constructs)." This speaks to the Part vs. Whole flaw, since the idea is that a feature / trait / property that applies to the parts that a whole is composed of doesn't necessarily also apply to the whole itself.

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

    66% picked this

  3. It presumes, without providing justification,

    Opposite Assumption

    This answer would work, as a way of addressing the intermediate conclusion, if it started with "fails to consider / overlooks possibility" rather than with "presumes / takes for granted". The author's reasoning move to the intermediate conclusion was that, "If there's no essential distinction between energy and mass (and if we know that energy is a theoretical construct), then that means mass is also a theoretical construct". That reasoning is presuming that two things have the same feature if there is no essential distinction between them.

    7% picked this

  4. It fails to address adequately

    Not an Objection

    When Flaw answers start with fails to consider / overlooks the possibility, we can ask ourselves whether the idea that follows would weaken or could be used as an objection. This one doesn't get off the ground because the argument never talks about any "feature" that some theoretical constructs have. Energy and mass have the "feature" of being a theoretical construct. This answer would be appropriate for an argument that sounds like, "X and Y are both theoretical constructs. Since X has trait A, then Y must also have trait A."

    14% picked this

  5. It presumes, without providing justification,

    Too Strong

    This argument is certainly accepting the claim that "energy is merely a theoretical construct" and it tells us that many prominent physicists have suggested as much. This answer says something way stronger: "As long as one physicist (prominent or obscure) has suggested something, that proves that it's true." We should also feel unnerved picking this answer because we would just be objecting to the validity of a premise, not to the reasoning move that got the author to the conclusion.

    11% 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