VIPLSATCracking LSAT makes you a VIP.

Logical Reasoning · Flaw

PrepTest 121 · Section 1 · Question 13

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

Step 1 · Pre-Question Guidance · read this first

Question type
Flaw
The one idea it tests
A reply that answers a side point and skips the other speaker's main reason.
The basic logic
Find the first speaker's conclusion and the reason holding it up. Then see whether the reply ever touches that reason. If the reply attacks something else (a similarity, a detail), it misses the target.
Tiny words that decide it
  • “only”
  • “best”
  • “I disagree”

Playground logic

Frankie says only the art teacher should run clay class, because she knows which glazes suit each project. Sharon fires back that her clay club uses the very same clay. That is a reply to a point Frankie never made: the patty (knowing what fits each project) is left untouched.

Step 2 · The kid story

The Great Clay Debate

Frankie and Sharon were arguing again, this time at the craft table. 'Clay class should be taught only by Ms. Rivera,' Frankie said. 'She knows which glaze works for mugs, which works for bowls, and how to tell if a pot cracked in the kiln.' Sharon crossed her arms. 'Nope. My after-school clay club covers most of the same projects. We even use the same brand of clay!' Lulu looked up from her clipboard. 'Sharon, Frankie's reason was about knowing what fits each project and reading the results. You talked about the clay brand.' Marcus nodded wisely. 'Same clay, same class. Case closed.' Priya sipped her juice box. 'Not closed. Sharon answered a question nobody asked. Frankie's reason is still standing, untouched.'

Step 3 · Try the model question

Frankie: Clay class should be taught only by Ms. Rivera, because she best knows which glazes suit each project and how to judge results from the kiln. Sharon: I disagree. My clay club covers many of the same projects, and we even use the same brand of clay.

What is the main weakness in Sharon's reply to Frankie?

Choices

Step 4 · The courtroom tale

The Case of the Cake Judge

The town baking contest had a rule: only pastry chefs may judge. Lawyer Bea Tran explained why. 'Pastry chefs best know which techniques fit each dessert and how to read a crumb.' Mr. Whitfield stood for the challenger, a home cook. 'Your Honor, my client bakes many of the same cakes, and she uses the very same oven model as the chefs!' The judge raised an eyebrow. 'Mr. Whitfield, Ms. Tran's reason was about knowing techniques and reading results. Your oven model does not touch that.' Mr. Whitfield sat down slowly. 'Fair point, Your Honor.' Lesson: a reply must hit the other side's actual reason, not something next to it.

Step 5 · Work the real question

Open PrepTest 121, Section 1, Question 13 in your official copy from LSAC (for example in LawHub) and read it there.

Your answer

How to apply it

First, find the first speaker's conclusion and underline the reason given for it. Then read the reply and ask: does it ever argue against that specific reason? If the reply only points to overlap or shared materials, the reason is left untouched. Pick the answer that names this miss. Reject answers describing moves the reply never actually makes, or assumptions the reply never needs.