Logical Reasoning

PT6 · S2 · Q14 Joshua Smith’s new novel was

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

Joshua Smith’s new novel was criticized by the book editor for The Daily Standard as implausible.

Conclusion

The book editor's criticism — that Joshua Smith's novel is implausible — is unwarranted.

Evidence

Each individual incident in the novel is the kind of thing that could very well have happened to someone or other.

Evaluate

The argument moves from "each individual incident is plausible" to "the novel as a whole is plausible." But a novel can be implausible because of the combination of incidents — having all of them happen to one character, or in one short stretch of time, can be wildly improbable even if every single one is individually fine. (One person winning the lottery: plausible. The same person winning the lottery, surviving a plane crash, and discovering a new species in the same week: implausible — even though each incident is individually possible.)

Goal

Find an answer naming the part-to-whole flaw: assuming the whole has a property because each part has it.

14.

Which one of the following is the most serious error of reasoning in the argument?

  1. It relies on the assumption

    Bad Description

    The author dismisses the criticism by appealing to the content of the novel, not by saying the critic has previously displayed bad judgment. The mention of "criticisms from the same source in the past" is offered as further context for the author's dismissal — but the actual argument given is about each incident being plausible, not about the critic's judgment history. The author does not rely on past judgment as the reason.

    16% picked this

  2. It ignores the fact that

    Bad Description

    The author appeals to what readers would agree about — but the issue here is not whether agreement equals truth. The flaw is in moving from individual-incident plausibility to whole-novel plausibility. Whether people can agree on something false is not the operative problem.

    9% picked this

  3. It calls into question the

    Ad Hominem

    The author does not attack the critic personally instead of addressing the criticism. The author does address the criticism on its merits — by arguing each incident is plausible. The flaw is in how the author addresses it (the part-to-whole leap), not in dodging it through personal attack.

    2% picked this

  4. Correct

    It takes for granted that

    Why this is right

    This nails the flaw. The author concludes the whole novel has a property (plausibility) by establishing that each part (each individual incident) has that property. But plausibility does not transfer that way — a bunch of individually plausible events can combine into an implausible whole if their combination is too unlikely. The argument assumes a property of parts must be a property of the whole.

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

    62% picked this

  5. It attempts to justify its

    Circular Reasoning

    This describes circular reasoning — citing reasons that only work if you already accept the conclusion. The author here does not do that; the appeal to "anyone who has actually read the novel would agree" can be evaluated independently of believing the conclusion. The flaw is structural (parts-to-whole), not circular.

    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