Question

All savings accounts are interest-bearing accounts. The interest from some interest-bearing accounts is tax-free, so there must be some savings accounts that have taxfree interest. Which one of the following arguments is flawed in a way most similar to the way in which the passage is flawed? (A) All artists are intellectuals. Some great photographers are artists. Therefore, some great photographers must be intellectuals. (B) All great photographers are artists. All artists are intellectuals. Therefore, some great photographers must be intellectuals. (C) All great photographers are artists. Some artists are intellectuals. Therefore, some great photographers are intellectuals. (D) All great photographers are artists. Some great photographers are intellectuals. Therefore, some artists must be intellectuals. (E) All great photographers are artists. No artists are intellectuals. Therefore, some great photographers must not be intellectuals.

Short answer

(A) All artists are intellectuals. Some great photographers are artists. Therefore, some great photographers must be intellectuals.

Step-by-step solution

Identify the Flaw in the Original Argument

The original argument is: 1. All savings accounts are interest-bearing accounts. 2. Some interest-bearing accounts have tax-free interest. 3. Therefore, some savings accounts must have tax-free interest. The flaw here is that the argument assumes that because some interest-bearing accounts are tax-free, this attribute must apply to savings accounts as well, without specific evidence supporting that conclusion.

Analyze Each Option

Now, let's look at each option to identify a similarly flawed argument: (A) All artists are intellectuals. Some great photographers are artists. Therefore, some great photographers must be intellectuals. (B) All great photographers are artists. All artists are intellectuals. Therefore, some great photographers must be intellectuals. (C) All great photographers are artists. Some artists are intellectuals. Therefore, some great photographers are intellectuals. (D) All great photographers are artists. Some great photographers are intellectuals. Therefore, some artists must be intellectuals. (E) All great photographers are artists. No artists are intellectuals. Therefore, some great photographers must not be intellectuals.

Match the Flaw

The original argument's flaw is that it incorrectly transfers a property from a broader category (interest-bearing accounts) to a sub-category (savings accounts) without direct evidence. - (A) has the same logical structure: it assumes that a subset (great photographers) must also hold a property of the larger set (artists being intellectuals) without a necessary conclusion. - (B) is logically valid because it follows directly. - (C) does not provide a necessary conclusion. - (D) does not follow a necessary conclusion from the premises. - (E) does not follow a necessary conclusion and presents a contradiction.

Select the Correct Option

(A) has the same type of flaw as the original passage. It assumes that, because all artists are intellectuals and some great photographers are artists, some great photographers must be intellectuals without guaranteeing the connection. Similarly, in the original argument, the assumption about savings accounts having tax-free interest is made without evidence.

Key concepts

Logical Reasoning

Logical reasoning is a critical skill tested on the LSAT, and it involves examining and evaluating arguments. When you encounter a logical reasoning question, you need to determine the structure of the argument and evaluate the relationship between its premises and conclusion.
Logical reasoning requires recognizing whether the conclusions logically follow from the premises. Think of it like solving a puzzle - you're provided with pieces (the premises), and your job is to see if they fit together to create a complete picture (the conclusion).

• The original exercise presents a scenario: All savings accounts are interest-bearing accounts. Some interest-bearing accounts offer tax-free interest, leading to the conclusion that some savings accounts must offer tax-free interest.
• The task is to determine if this conclusion logically follows based on the given premises.

Recognizing patterns and inconsistencies is crucial. By practicing logical reasoning questions, you'll improve your ability to see through complex arguments and identify gaps or flaws.

Argument Evaluation

Argument evaluation is the process of critically examining an argument to assess its strength and validity. In argument evaluation, you seek to answer questions like: Is the argument sound? Do the premises support the conclusion? Are there hidden assumptions?
This exercise demonstrates a flawed argument that relies on a problematic assumption. It assumes that because some interest-bearing accounts are tax-free, some savings accounts must also be tax-free without providing evidence.

• The key in evaluating arguments is identifying if there are assumptions not explicitly stated that weaken the argument's integrity.
• The original argument also lacks direct evidence linking the premises to the conclusion, making the reasoning flawed.

By scrutinizing arguments, you can discern between well-supported conclusions and those that jump to unwarranted conclusions.

Logical Flaws

Logical flaws, or fallacies, occur when there are errors in reasoning. Learning to spot these flaws helps in identifying weak arguments.
The original exercise contains a logical flaw where properties of a larger group are incorrectly attributed to a subset without justification. In this case, it assumes all savings accounts must have tax-free interest simply because some interest-bearing accounts do.
Recognizing logical flaws can be like identifying mistakes in a math equation. A correct diagnosis can prevent misunderstandings. Common logical flaws include:

• Hasty generalization – jumping to a conclusion based on limited evidence.
• False cause – assuming one event causes another just because they’re temporally sequential.
• Circular reasoning – when the conclusion is included in the premises.

Understanding these flaws allows for better argumentation and critical evaluation of claims you encounter.

Deductive Reasoning

Deductive reasoning is about drawing specific conclusions based on general premises that are assumed to be true. If the premises are accurate and the reasoning is valid, the conclusion must also be true.
A classic example of deductive reasoning is: "All humans are mortal. Socrates is a human. Therefore, Socrates is mortal."
In deductive reasoning, the logic flows from a general statement to a specific conclusion. The exercise in focus mistakenly uses deductive reasoning by assuming a conclusion that doesn’t logically follow.

• In a valid deductive argument, it’s impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false.
• A flaw in reasoning may mean that even if the premises are true, the conclusion isn't guaranteed.

Judging the validity of deductive arguments helps develop rigorous logical thinking important for the LSAT and beyond.