This simulated LSAT question has been provided by Blueprint LSAT Prep. Because LSAC rules prohibit the use of actual LSAT questions on the internet, this question has been written by Blueprint founder Trent Teti and tests a type of argument that frequently appears on the LSAT. This week’s installment: The fallacy of composition.
In an unprecedented fluke maelstrom, the Bloomville harbor bridge has recently collapsed into the sea. Faced with the daunting task of rehabilitating the coastal city’s major transit and commerce center, Mayor Schmidt has undertaken a search for engineers to spearhead the project. Realizing that only the knowledge of a professional industrial engineer could properly handle the rigorous task at hand, Mayor Schmidt has rounded up all eight qualified engineers in the hopes of selecting a viable candidate. Unfortunately, after each engineer was individually interviewed for the position, no single candidate presented the sufficient skill set to oversee the project. As a result, Mayor Schmidt has decided that the bridge cannot be repaired, and has urged Bloomville’s residents to find alternative means of travel and employment.
Which of the following best describes the error in reasoning in the argument above?
(A) The argument falsely assumes that a condition sufficient for a given situation is in fact a necessary prerequisite
(B) The use of the term “engineer” has shifted irrelevantly during the course of the argument
(C) The argument neglects to consider that a composite of several variables may contain a quality not found within the individual variable themselves
(D) The argument improperly impugns the source of a claim rather than its content
(E) Mayor Schmidt has failed to consider solutions that don’t involve skilled engineers
For a detailed explanation and answer to this question, refer to the QuickTime movie, below, featuring Blueprint LSAT Prep veteran instructor Jay. Click here for a larger version.
Check out Blueprint’s LSAT and law school discussion board.
Leave a comment
