Warning: foreach() argument must be of type array|object, bool given in /var/www/html/web/app/themes/studypress-core-theme/template-parts/header/mobile-offcanvas.php on line 20

All intelligent people are nearsighted. I am very nearsighted. So I must be a genius. Which one of the following exhibits both of the logical flaws exhibited in the argument above? (A) I must be stupid because all intelligent people are nearsighted and I have perfect eyesight. (B) All chickens have beaks. This bird has a beak. So this bird must be a chicken. (C) All pigs have four legs, but this spider has eight legs. So this spider must be twice as big as any pig. (D) John is extremely happy, so he must be extremely tall because all tall people are happy. (E) All geniuses are very nearsighted. I must be very nearsighted since I am a genius.

Short Answer

Expert verified
Option D

Step by step solution

01

Identifying Logical Flaws

The argument contains two logical flaws: (1) assuming that because one shares a trait common to a group, one must belong to that group. (2) incorrect causation, implying that nearsightedness causes genius.
02

Analyzing Option A

Option A states that all intelligent people are nearsighted and concludes one must be stupid if not nearsighted. This implies causation and assumes a shared trait implies group membership, similar flaws to the original.
03

Analyzing Option B

Option B suggests that since all chickens have beaks and a bird has a beak, the bird must be a chicken. This mirrors the flaw by assuming a shared trait indicates group membership, but lacks the flaw of incorrect causation.
04

Analyzing Option C

Option C states all pigs have four legs and a spider has eight legs, leading to the conclusion that the spider is bigger. This does not match the logical flaws of membership by shared trait or incorrect causation.
05

Analyzing Option D

Option D concludes someone is tall because they are happy, based on the premise that all tall people are happy. This matches both logical flaws: assuming a shared trait implies group membership, and suggesting causation from happiness to tallness.
06

Analyzing Option E

Option E states all geniuses are nearsighted and implies someone must be nearsighted if a genius. This reflects a causation flaw but assumes correct membership, unlike the original argument.
07

Conclusion

Option D is the only one exhibiting both logical flaws: attributing a group membership based on a trait and implying incorrect causation.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with Vaia!

Key Concepts

These are the key concepts you need to understand to accurately answer the question.

Logical Flaws
Logical flaws in arguments are errors or missteps in reasoning that undermine the logic of the conclusion. They can make an argument seem convincing when it is not. Understanding these flaws is crucial for LSAT logical reasoning questions.

A common type of logical flaw is assuming that because someone has a trait, they necessarily belong to a group that shares this trait. For example, just because all intelligent people are nearsighted, it doesn't follow that someone who is nearsighted is intelligent. This misstep reverses the relationship and fails to recognize that many groups may share a trait without being identical.
  • Example: Thinking all swans are white does not mean all that is white must be a swan.
  • Another Example: Since basketball players are tall, anyone tall must be a basketball player is a flawed logic.
This logic is faulty as it ignores the possibility of shared characteristics not indicating exclusive group membership.

Recognizing logical flaws helps to critically assess the strength of an argument and effectively answer questions on the LSAT logical reasoning section.
Incorrect Causation
Incorrect causation is another common logical flaw encountered in LSAT logical reasoning. It involves wrongly assuming that because two events occur together, one must cause the other. Such reasoning can lead to incorrect conclusions.

The classic fallacy here is correlation does not imply causation. Just because nearsightedness and intelligence might co-occur doesn't mean one causes the other. To clear this up, it's vital to test if there's a real causal link between the two, which often requires more information. Here are some helpful considerations:
  • Consider possibility of a third factor causing both events.
  • Question whether it's plausible for one event to directly cause the other.
Improperly attributing causation not only leads to incorrect reasoning in test answers but can also perpetuate misconceptions in everyday thinking.
Group Membership Assumption
Group membership assumption is a common logical misstep where it's believed that because a member of a group shares a characteristic, anyone with the characteristic must belong to that group. This assumption blurs the line between correlation and definitive group inclusion.

For example, you might think that if all geniuses are nearsighted, then being nearsighted means you are a genius. This misses the fact that many others could share this trait and not belong to the specific group. Here are some tips to tackle group membership assumptions:
  • Check if the characteristic is exclusive only to the group.
  • Consider other potential reasons for the shared trait.
Using these strategies, you can identify when assumptions about group membership are unfounded. This critical thinking is particularly valuable in solving LSAT logical reasoning problems, ensuring you understand the core of each argument correctly.

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

Advertisement: Clark brand-name parts are made for cars manufactured in this country. They satisfy all of our government automotive teststhe toughest such tests in the world. With foreign-made parts, you never know which might be reliable and which are cheap lookalikes that are poorly constructed and liable to cost you hundreds of dollars in repairs. Therefore, be smart and insist on brand-name parts by Clark for your car. The argument requires the assumption that (A) Clark parts are available only in this country (B) foreign-made parts are not suitable for cars manufactured in this country (C) no foreign-made parts satisfy our government standards (D) parts that satisfy our government standards are not as poorly constructed as cheap foreign-made parts (E) if parts are made for cars manufactured in our country, they are not poorly constructed

People have long been fascinated by the paranormal. Over the years, numerous researchers have investigated telepathy only to find that conclusive evidence for its existence has persistently evaded them. Despite this. there are still those who believe that there must be "something in it" since some research seems to support the view that telepathy exists. However, it can often be shown that other explanations that do comply with known laws can be given. Therefore, it is premature to conclude that telepathy is an alternative means of communication. In the passage, the author (A) supports the conclusion by pointing to the inadequacy of evidence for the opposite view (B) supports the conclusion by describing particular experiments (C) supports the conclusion by overgeneralizing from a specific piece of evidence (D) draws a conclusion that is not supported by the premises (E) rephrases the conclusion without offering any support for it

"Though they soon will, patients should not lave a legal rightit to see their mediczal records. As a doctor, I see two reasons for this. First, giving them access will be time-wasting because it will significantly reduce the amount of time that medical staff can spend on more important duties, by forcing them to retrieve and return files. Second, if my experience is anything to go by, no patients are going to ask for access to their records anyway." Which one of the following, if true, establishes that the doctor's second reason does not cancel out the first? (A) The new law will require that doctors, when seeing a patient in their office, must be ready to produce the patient's records immediately, not just ready to retrieve them. (B) The task of retrieving and returning files would fall to the lowest-paid member of a doctor's office staff. (C) Any patients who asked to see their medical records would also insist on having details they did not understand explained to them. (D) The new law does not rule out that doctors may charge patients for extra expenses incurred specifically in order to comply with the new law. (E) Some doctors have all along had a policy of allowing their patients access to their medical records, but those doctors' patients took no advantage of this policy.

A government agency publishes ratings of airlines, ranking highest the airlines that have the smallest proportion of late flights. The agency's purpose is to establish an objective measure of the relative efficiency of different airlines' personnel in meeting published flight schedules. Which one of the following, if true, would tend to invalidate use of the ratings for the agency's purpose? (A) Travelers sometimes have no choice of airlines for a given trip at a given time. (B) Flights are often made late by bad weather conditions that affect some airlines more than others. (C) The flight schedules of all airlines allow extra time for flights that go into or out of very busy airports. (D) Airline personnel are aware that the government agency is monitoring all airline flights for lateness. (E) Flights are defined as "late" only if they arrive more that fifteen minutes past their scheduled arrival time, and a record is made of how much later than fifteen minutes they are.

A well-known sports figure found that combining publicity tours with playing tours led to problems, so she stopped combining the two. She no longer allows bookstore appearances and playing in competition to occur in the same city within the same trip. This week she is traveling to London to play in a major competition, so during her stay in London she will not be making any publicity appearances at any bookstore in London. Which one of the following most closely parallels the reasoning used in the passage? (A) Wherever there is an Acme Bugkiller, many wasps are killed. The \(\mathrm{Z}\) family garden has an Acme Bugkiller, so any wasps remaining in the garden will soon be killed. (B) The only times that the hospital's emergency room staff attends to relatively less serious emergencies are times when there is no critical emergency to attend to. On Monday night the emergency room staff attended to a series of fairly minor emergencies, so there must not have been any critical emergencies to take care of at the time. (C) Tomato plants require hot summers to thrive. Farms in the cool summers of country \(Y\) probably do not have thriving tomato plants. (D) Higher grades lead to better job opportunities. and studying leads to higher grades. Therefore, studying will lead to better job opportunities. (E) Butter knives are not sharp. \(Q\) was not murdered with a sharp blade, so suspect \(X\) 's butter knife may have been the murder weapon.

See all solutions

Recommended explanations on English Textbooks

View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.

Sign-up for free