Logical Reasoning · Method of Argument

PrepTest 115 · Section 2 · Question 4

Phase 1 (your first ~400 questions): read the guidance, then answer. No clock.

Step 1 · Pre-Question Guidance · read this first

Question type

Method of Argument

The one idea it tests

The second speaker builds a look-alike case where the first speaker's reason still applies but the conclusion is clearly wrong.

The basic logic

Speaker one says 'I didn't use a bad method, so my result is fine.' Speaker two offers a parallel case with no bad method where everyone agrees the result is not fine. That is refutation by analogy: same shape, opposite answer.

Tiny words that decide it

“since”
“even though”
“if”

Playground logic

Frankie's burger: no cheating, so my win counts. Sharon doesn't argue about the facts. She serves a twin burger (a glitchy trophy you didn't earn) where 'no cheating' is also true, yet keeping the prize is clearly wrong.

Step 2 · The kid story

The Glitchy Spinner

Frankie and Sharon were playing a race board game. The spinner jammed and Frankie jumped three extra spaces, right onto the finish line. "I win!" Frankie shouted. "I didn't peek, I didn't cheat, I didn't bump the board. So my win totally counts." Sharon folded her arms. "Okay. Pretend the school scoreboard glitched and handed you the trophy for a race you never ran. You didn't peek or cheat or bump anything then either. Would you deserve that trophy?" Frankie opened his mouth, then closed it. "Well... no." Priya, watching from the beanbag, sipped her juice box. "Sharon didn't say your facts were wrong. She showed a matching case with the opposite answer." Frankie sighed and moved his piece back three spaces.

Step 3 · Try the model question

Frankie: I didn't peek or cheat, so my win counts. Sharon: If the scoreboard glitched and gave you a trophy for a race you never ran, you wouldn't have cheated either, but you wouldn't deserve that trophy.

Sharon responds to Frankie by

Step 4 · The courtroom tale

The Delivery Truck Mix-Up

A flower shop got forty roses delivered by mistake, meant for the shop next door, and sold them. In court, its owner said, "I didn't lie, steal, or threaten anyone. The truck just dropped them off. So keeping them was fine." Mr. Whitfield, for the shop next door, rose. "Your Honor, suppose a moving truck unloaded my client's piano into the owner's living room by mistake. No lies, no theft, no threats. Would the owner be free to keep the piano?" The courtroom chuckled. The owner shifted in her seat. "Same reason, opposite answer," Mr. Whitfield said. "So that reason can't be enough." The judge agreed and ordered payment for every rose.

Step 5 · Work the real question

Open PrepTest 115, Section 2, Question 4 in your official copy from LSAC (for example in LawHub) and read it there.

Your answer

How to apply it

First write the first speaker's burger: the reason and the conclusion. Then ask what the second speaker actually does with it. Does she deny a fact, attack a person, or bring in a new case? Check whether her new case shares the same reason and reaches the opposite verdict. If so, predict 'counterexample by a similar case' and match it. Make sure the choice you pick describes what the second speaker really does, not something she never says.