Logical Reasoning

PT21 · S3 · Q5 Since Professor Smythe has been

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

Since Professor Smythe has been head of the department, the most distinguished member of the faculty has resigned, fewer new courses have been developed, student enrollment has dropped, and the reputation of the department has gone down.

Conclusion (conclusive evidence that)

Professor Smythe was appointed to undermine the department.

Evidence

Since Professor Smythe has been head of the department, the most distinguished faculty member has resigned, fewer new sources have been developed, student enrollment has dropped, and the reputation of the department has gone down.

Evaluate

The argument points out a bunch of bad stuff that's happened since Prof S has been head of the department and then concludes that Prof S was appointed for the purpose of making bad stuff happen.

We could say,

This is a semi-famous flaw we call Intent vs. Result (or Motive vs. Consequence).

If a comedian makes a joke and it triggers a sad memory for someone in the audience and they start crying, we can't say that the comedian intended for that person to cry.

In this case, we don't even know if all the bad things at this school are a causal result of Prof S. They might be unrelated to her.

Goal

We can object,

Or we can object,

5.

The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument

  1. overlooks the fact that something

    Bad Premise / Conclusion Match

    This answer choice would apply to an argument that said, "X has a reputation for being poor quality. Thus, X is poor quality." That bears no resemblance to our argument: "Since X came on the scene, bad stuff happened. Thus, X came on the scene in order to make bad stuff happen."

    1% picked this

  2. bases a general claim on

    Not Sampling

    This refers to one of the 10 famous flaws, Sampling, in which an author relies on a sample that is too small, unrepresentative, or skewed in some other way. The conclusion here is not a general claim. It's a specific claim about Prof S and the department.

    7% picked this

  3. Correct

    assumes that because an action

    Why this is right

    If an answer says, "the author assumes that because X, Y", then X should match the evidence and Y should match the conclusion or the assumption that feeds into the conclusion. Do we have "an action followed by a change"? Sure, the action of appointing Prof S head of the department was followed by several changes (the top faculty person resigned, fewer new courses are developed, enrollment dropped, reputation has gone down). Does the conclusion act like "the appointing of Prof S as head of the department" was undertaken to bring about all those bad changes we just listed? Yes! The conclusion uses an infinitive, "to undermine". Infinitives convey a sense of purpose or intent. We can say "Just because the comedian's joke was followed by an audience member sobbing, we can't say that the comedian made that joke in order to make the audience member start crying." Or in this case, "Just because all those negative changes followed Prof S's appointment, that doesn't mean that Prof S's appointment was done in order to bring about those negative changes."

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

    89% picked this

  4. fails to distinguish between a

    Not an Objection

    Among the four negative things mentioned, there is both a decline in quantity (fewer new courses / fewer students enrolled) and a decline in quality (most distinguished faculty resigned / reputation has gone down). This answer choice would be addressing an argument that sounds like, "Drake used to put out 10 songs a year. Now he only puts out 5 songs a year. Clearly, Drake's songs are getting worse." Our objection to the Smythe argument is, "Just because there has been a decline in quantity and quality since Smythe was appointed to the department, that doesn't show that people appointed Smythe in the hopes of having those declines."

    1% picked this

  5. presupposes what it purports to

    Not Circular

    This refers to one of the 10 famous flaws, Circular Reasoning, in which the premise restates the conclusion or assumes the truth of the conclusion. All these mean Circular: - premise restates the conclusion - presupposes what it purports to establish - assumes what it sets out to prove - presumes the truth of the conclusion This argument's premise is distinct from its conclusion. It's not a restatement or an idea that necessitates believing the conclusion, so we can't call this a circular argument.

    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