Logical Reasoning

PT8 · S4 · Q23 Sabina: The words used in

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

Sabina: The words used in expressing facts affect neither the facts nor the conclusions those facts will support.

Sabina's Explicit Claims

1. The words we use to express facts doesn't affect the facts or the conclusions you can derive from them.

2. If clearly defined and consistently used, the words chosen make no difference to the soundness.

3. How an argument is expressed can have no bearing on whether it's a good argument.

Emile's Responses

1. DISAGREES - the conclusions you can derive are affected by word choice (because word choice affects whether someone will acknowledge a fact, it'll affect what conclusions can be drawn from the 'facts').

2. DISAGREES - the words chosen do make a difference to soundness (because .)

3. DISAGREES - how it's expressed DOES affect the soundness (because )

Goal

Wow, this is a weird one, because the second person actually disagreed with each of the first person's explicit claims. So it's hard to make a specific prephrase, because it could be almost any of the ideas from Sabina's paragraph.

23.

The point at issue between Emile and Sabina is whether

  1. defining words in one way

    Out of Scope (defining) Nobody Disagrees

    This one doesn't get off the ground. We can't derive this idea from either paragraph because neither speaker talked about defining words different ways. They were both speaking about which words you choose, not which definition you choose. Sabina is somewhat implying this answer by suggesting that consistently defined words won't affect soundness, but we certainly wouldn't be able to derive the Disagree position from Emile that "defining a word this way or that way doesn't alter the facts or the potential conclusions". Of course it changes things if "an adult" is defined as an 18 year old or a 13 year old (as Jewish people might).

    19% picked this

  2. a word can be defined

    Nobody Disagrees

    Again, at first blush this isn't tempting because the conversation wasn't about how we define words; it was about whether choosing different words affects the sort of arguments you can make on the basis of facts. This is a very weak idea that both speakers would probably accept, but we don't really have textual support to say either one does. The easiest way to eliminate, though, is to think, "I definitely can't derive the Disagree position from either paragraph", which is "It is impossible to define a word w/o taking into account its social and political connotations". The speaker who came closer to saying that was Emile and he just said "many words have social and political connotations, not ALL words."

    4% picked this

  3. a sound argument in support

    Unsupported Comparison / Nobody Agrees

    We can't get off the ground with this one. Neither speaker talked about which types of arguments are better, so we can't even make the case that we could derive this answer from either paragraph.

    2% picked this

  4. it would be a good

    Out of Scope / Nobody Agrees

    We can't get off the ground with this one. Neither speaker used normative language, so neither has indicated what they think should be the case. They're just using descriptive language to argue about whether word choice does / doesn't make a difference.

    13% picked this

  5. Correct

    a factor that affects neither

    Why this is right

    We should have known that since there was so much explicit disagreement that they might test us on an assumption. This is a confusing answer to understand, but we should gravitate towards it because we know the dispute was about whether or not word choice has an effect on facts / soundness / derivable conclusions. (E) and (A) are the only answers making causal claims, and it's definitely an Anti-Causal vs. Causal argument. Since we know that Emile was Team Causal, we would want to match this answer up with this paragraph. What is the "factor" he's talking about that can cause an argument to be a bad one? Word choice. He says "badly chosen words can make even the soundest argument a poor one". This answer is just trying to "hide the ball" by disguising "the words chosen" as a factor that affects neither the truth of the premises nor the logical relation between premises and conclusion. Is Sabina saying "Word choice can't cause an argument to be a bad one"? Definitely. The last thing we need to sign off on is whether it's fair to say that "word choice affects neither the truth of the premises nor the logical relation between premises and conclusion". Sure, that's Sabina's first sentence. Emile doesn't dispute that. He accepts that word choice has no effect on whether the fact is true and thus no effect on what conclusions can be derived. He's just saying word choice affects whether people will accept a given fact as true.

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

    62% 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