Logical Reasoning

PT18 · S2 · Q5 From a magazine article: Self-confidence

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

From a magazine article: Self-confidence is a dangerous virtue: it often degenerates into the vice of arrogance.

Conclusion

Self-confidence is a dangerous virtue.

Evidence

Self-confidence often degenerates into the vice of arrogance, which can be very dangerous indeed (just consider arrogantly self-confident people like Hitler and Stalin).

Evaluate

This argument is a little like saying,

Sure, that's true. There can be an excess of water drinking. But that doesn't mean we should impugn "water" as some evil substance.

However, we don't need to worry about what's wrong with this argument, since the question stem just wants us to describe it.

Goal

Find any answer that descriptively matches the argument.

The author certainly cited some examples, and the author attempted to undermine a concept "self-confidence" by warning us about the danger of its extremes "arrogance".

5.

The author attempts to persuade by doing all of the following except

  1. using extreme cases to evoke

    Matches

    The argument definitely uses extreme cases (Hitler / Stalin). Is it to evoke an emotional response? We could quibble over that, but it is definitely meant to create a strong rhetorical effect, and we could call that emotional. It probably does provoke an emotional response, but the author could defend herself by saying, "I'm not trying to get people to respond emotionally. I want them to dispassionately see that if extreme self-confidence gave us the terrible legacies of Hitler/Stalin, then it is a dangerous virtue." I might leave this on a first pass and pick it if it felt like "emotional response" was the hardest thing to match in any of the answer choices.

    3% picked this

  2. introducing value-laden terms, such as

    Matches

    The author did introduce a value-laden term, by calling arrogance a vice.

    5% picked this

  3. illustrating the danger of arrogance

    Matches

    The author did attempt to illustrate the danger of arrogance; she literally says "the danger of arrogance is evident to all who care to look -- for example, Hitler/Stalin".

    6% picked this

  4. Correct

    appealing to authority to substantiate

    Why this is right

    Appealing to an authority means to cite an expert who agrees with the point you're trying to make. Hitler and Stalin are the only people discussed, but they're not cited as experts who agree with the author. The author asserts "Self-confidence is a dangerous virtue". Appealing to an authority would sound like, "As Oprah's psychologist often reminds us, when you're self-confident, you tend to ignore the suffering of others."

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

    83% picked this

  5. implying that Hitler’s arrogance arose

    Matches

    The author said that Hitler had an "arrogant self-confidence", and cites Hitler as an illustration of the danger of arrogance, in order to ultimately conclude that self-confidence is dangerous. So the author must be assuming/implying that Hitler's arrogance was the result of self-confidence degenerating into arrogance.

    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