Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Medium

PT16 S2 Q24 Explanation

The role of the Uplandian supreme court

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

TopicsFlaw

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Free to start

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Stimulus

The role of the Uplandian supreme court is to protect all human rights against abuses of government power. Since the constitution of Uplandia is not explicit about all human rights, the supreme court must sometimes resort to principles outside the explicit provisions of the constitution in justifying its decisions. However, human rights of the Uplandian supreme court is to protect all human rights against abuses of government power.

What this question is testing

Flaw

Conclusion

The argument ends by saying it's not true that the supreme court protects all human rights.

Evidence

The argument derives two conclusions. One says the court has to use principles outside the constitution. The other says nothing but the constitution can justify court decisions. Those two clearly clash.

Evaluate

Here is the move to watch. When derived conclusions contradict, you know at least one of the assumptions feeding them is wrong — but the contradiction itself doesn't tell you which assumption is the bad one.

Think of a chain of three claims that together produce a contradiction. Any one of them could be the broken link. The argument picks the first link by fiat. But maybe the second link is wrong: perhaps the constitution actually does cover all human rights, so the court never needs to look outside it. Or maybe the third link is wrong: maybe judges can use other standards without it being mere whim.

Goal

Find the answer that says the argument blames one specific premise when other premises could just as well be at fault.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
24.

The reasoning that leads to the conclusion that the first sentence in the passage is false is flawed

Answer choices

  1. Bad Description9% picked this

    ignores data that offer reasonable support for a general claim and focuses on a single example that

    The argument is not built on data and counterexamples. It is a chain of derived conclusions that contradict each other. There is no general claim being defended against contrary data, just an inconsistency between intermediate conclusions. This describes a different flaw.

  2. Inappropriate Appeals4% picked this

    seeks to defend a view on the grounds that the view is widely held and that decisions based on that view

    The argument does not appeal to popularity or widespread acceptance. None of the premises invoke "many people believe" or "decisions based on this view are accepted as correct." The argument is a logical chain, not a popularity argument.

  3. Bad Description4% picked this

    rejects a claim as false on the grounds that those who make that claim could profit if that

    The argument does not raise self-interest as a reason to reject any claim. There is no mention of who benefits from holding which view. The flaw is structural, in how the argument blames one premise out of several when the contradiction implies only that some premise is wrong.

  4. Part vs. Whole11% picked this

    makes an unwarranted assumption that what is true of each member of a group taken separately is also true of

    This describes a part-whole flaw — concluding that what holds for individuals also holds for the group. The argument does not do that. There is no individual-versus-group inference; the argument turns on which premise to reject when conclusions conflict.

  5. Correct72% picked this

    concludes that a particular premise is false when it is equally possible for that premise to be true

    Why this is right

    This is the flaw exactly. The argument's two intermediate conclusions contradict each other, and the argument moves directly from "these conclusions contradict" to "the first sentence is false." But an inconsistency only tells us that at least one premise feeding the contradiction is false — not which one. The first sentence could be true, with the second premise (the constitution is not explicit about all human rights) or the third (judicial power requires the constitution as a single objective standard) being false instead. The argument arbitrarily picks one premise as the culprit when the contradiction points equally at all of them.

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

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