Logical Reasoning · Weaken

PrepTest 131 · Section 3 · Question 2

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

Step 1 · Pre-Question Guidance · read this first

Question type

Weaken

The one idea it tests

A judge who stood to gain is not a clean witness that a choice was made on merit.

The basic logic

Someone admits a reward came with a choice but says the choice was made only on merit, and offers as proof a top score from the group that judged it. Weaken by showing the scorers themselves were swayed by the reward, so the proof is tainted.

Tiny words that decide it

“solely”
“as proof”
“admitted”

Playground logic

Sharon says the class picked the farm trip only because it is the best trip, and her proof is that the class vote ranked it first. Frankie pops the patty: the voters themselves were thinking about the free ice cream the farm promised, so the vote cannot prove the choice was pure.

Step 2 · The kid story

The Ice Cream Field Trip

Ms. Rivera's class had to pick a field trip. The farm said it would give every student free ice cream if the class chose it. The class chose the farm. Frankie crossed his arms. "We picked it for the ice cream!" Sharon shook her head. "No way. We picked it because it is the best trip. Proof: the class vote ranked it number one." Lulu tapped her clipboard. "Sharon admits the ice cream only came with the farm. Her proof is the vote." Priya slurped her juice box. "Then the real question is: what were the voters thinking about when they voted?" Kevin raised his hand. "I voted farm because of ice cream. So did Tommy. So did Nadia." Sharon's proof melted faster than a cone in July.

Step 3 · Try the model question

The class chose the farm trip, which came with free ice cream. Sharon admits the ice cream came only with the farm, but she insists the trip was picked purely because it was the best one. Her proof is that the class vote ranked the farm first.

Suppose each choice were true. Which would do the most damage to Sharon's position?

Step 4 · The courtroom tale

The Case of the Best Pie Ribbon

At the county fair hearing, Mr. Whitfield faced the fair director. "Your bakery sponsor gave the fair a new tent. Its pie won the blue ribbon. You say the pie won purely on taste?" "Yes," said the director. "Proof: the tasting panel scored it highest." Mr. Whitfield nodded slowly. "I call the panel's own notes." He read aloud: "Remember, this sponsor gave us the tent." The courtroom gasped. Judge Lark tapped her pen. "So the very people whose scores were the proof had the gift on their minds." Mr. Whitfield snapped his suspenders. "Exactly, Your Honor. If the judges were swayed, their high score cannot show the choice was clean."

Step 5 · Work the real question

Open PrepTest 131, Section 3, Question 2 in your official copy from LSAC (for example in LawHub) and read it there.

Your answer

How to apply it

Find the claim being defended (the choice was made on merit only) and the single piece of proof offered for it. Ask what that proof depends on: that the people who gave the rating judged fairly. Look for the choice that shows the raters themselves were influenced by the reward. Set aside choices that are about other people, other years, or that actually support the defender.