VIPLSATCracking LSAT makes you a VIP.

Logical Reasoning · Flaw

PrepTest 135 · 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
Flaw
The one idea it tests
A link between attention and later popularity is taken as proof that attention caused the popularity, ignoring that both may track real quality.
The basic logic
The premise is a correlation: items that got public attention are later chosen more by experts. The conclusion: experts are swayed by the attention, not by true worth. The overlooked option: whoever handed out the attention picked the truly worthy items, so experts choose them for their worth. That is a Rooster.
Tiny words that decide it
  • “more likely”
  • “thus”
  • “influenced”

Playground logic

Marcus's patty: books on the library's star shelf get borrowed more later. His top bun: kids pick books because of the star shelf, not because the books are good. He forgot the librarian may put the best books up there in the first place.

Step 2 · The kid story

The Star Shelf Mystery

The school library has a Star Shelf near the door. Marcus checked the borrowing cards. "Aha! Books that once sat on the Star Shelf get borrowed way more later, even after they move back to the regular shelves. Case closed. Kids pick books because of the shelf, not because the books are any good." Lulu tapped her clipboard. "Who chooses the Star Shelf books?" "Ms. Rivera," said Marcus. "She reads everything." Priya smiled. "So maybe she picks the great ones. Then kids borrow them later because they really are great, and the shelf did not fool anybody." Marcus slowly took off his detective hat. "So the shelf and the borrowing could both come from the books being good?" "Rooster alert," said Lulu.

Step 3 · Try the model question

Marcus: Books that were once placed on the library's Star Shelf are borrowed more often later than other books. So kids' choices of books are driven by which books were on the Star Shelf, not by how good the books actually are.

Marcus's reasoning is most open to which criticism?

Choices

Step 4 · The courtroom tale

The Case of the Ribbon Pies

At the county fair trial, a lawyer argued, "Pies that won a blue ribbon sell out faster next year. So buyers only care about ribbons, not taste!" Mr. Whitfield rose and snapped his suspenders. "Your Honor, who hands out the ribbons?" "The judges," said the lawyer. "And what do the judges do?" "They, um, taste the pies." "So," said Mr. Whitfield, "the ribbons may go to the tastiest pies, and buyers may love those pies because they are tasty. The ribbon and the sales could both come from good baking." The judge banged her gavel. "Rooster spotted. Correlation is not cause."

Step 5 · Work the real question

Open PrepTest 135, Section 2, Question 4 in your official copy from LSAC (for example in LawHub) and read it there.

Your answer

How to apply it

Write the patty as a correlation: getting attention goes with later expert approval. Write the top bun as a causal claim that the attention drives the approval rather than true worth. Ask whether something could explain both, especially the way the attention was handed out. Choose the answer that names that overlooked explanation. Test others by asking whether the argument actually says or needs what they describe.