Logical Reasoning

PT17 · S3 · Q22 On Saturday Melvin suggested that

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

On Saturday Melvin suggested that Jerome take the following week off from work and accompany him on a trip to the mountains.

Conclusion (It is clear)

Cost cannot be the real reason Jerome will not go to the mountains with Melvin.

Evidence (since)

Jerome gives the same cost excuse every time Melvin proposes an unscheduled vacation, no matter the destination.

Evaluate

We're not allowed to just reject someone's reason by saying, "oh, you always say that".

Jerome said he couldn't take next week off work to go the mountains because he couldn't afford the trip: the lost wages + cost of the trip were too much.

If our author is like, "nah, you say that every time", Jerome will be like,

Okay, I may have taken that too far on Jerome's behalf.

Goal

Look for an answer saying that the fact that "I can't afford it" is Jerome's excuse every time he turns down Melvin doesn't mean he's insincere. This is just a persistent problem!

22.

The reasoning is most vulnerable to which one of the following criticisms?

  1. It attempts to forestall an

    Bad Description

    No one is attacking Melvin's behavior in this passage, so there is nothing to forestall. The author is analyzing Jerome's stated reason, not deflecting criticism from Melvin.

    1% picked this

  2. It fails to establish that

    Irrelevant Comparison

    Since this begins with takes for granted / presumes / fails to establish, we treat it like Necessary Assumption. Did the argument need to assume that Melvin was just as financially challenged by this trip as Jerome was? No. But, weirdly, it probably would strengthen the argument if it were true. Like the author could say, "C'mon, Jerome. What do you mean you can't afford it?! That can't be your real excuse. After all, Melvin can't afford it either and he still wants to go." But the argument didn't need this to be assumed. The argument wasn't based on whether Melvin was in a similar financial position. The argument uses the reasoning: "since he always offers this excuse, it can't be the real reason".

    1% picked this

  3. It overlooks the possibility that

    Opposite

    Since this begins fails to consider / overlooks the possibility, we'll ask whether it would Weaken to say, "Jerome prefers well-planned out vacations". No that would strengthen. The author would be like, "See! I told you the real reason isn't that Jerome can't afford it. It's because he hates last-minute trips."

    6% picked this

  4. It assumes that if Jerome’s

    Bad Assumption

    Because the answer is structured, it assumes that if X, then Y we'll want to ask ourselves whether X matches the evidence and Y matches where the author tried to take that idea. Did the evidence say "Jerome's stated reason isn't his only reason?" No, the evidence said, "Jerome always provides this same stated reason regardless of the destination."

    21% picked this

  5. Correct

    It does not examine the

    Why this is right

    Since this begins fails to consider / overlooks the possibility, we'll ask whether it would Weaken to say, "Jerome behavior is adequately explained by the reason he gives for it"? Of course! That just contradicts the conclusion. What a silly answer. The author concluded, "The reason you gave can't be the real reason". And this answer is saying the author failed to consider the possibility that this is the real reason. By using the verb 'examine', the answer is also sort of calling out the author's failure to even explore whether Jerome's story about "can't afford it" is true. The author didn't offer any counterevidence to undermine that story. Wiping it away at face value as "that same lame excuse you're always saying" is a failure to actually engage with Jerome's stated reason.

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

    71% 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