Flawed ReasoningDiff: Medium

Logic Breakdown

Passage Summary: Morgenstern tells Brooks to quit because the worst-case scenario—unhappiness—is already happening, so there's nothing to lose.

Conclusion: Brooks should go ahead and quit his job.

Reasoning: The only risk of quitting is the potential unhappiness of unemployment, but since Brooks is already unhappy at his current job, there is no real downside.

Analysis: Morgenstern's logic is a bit like telling someone in a light drizzle to jump into a lake because they are 'already wet.' It fails to consider the degree or intensity of the condition. Being unhappy at work might be unpleasant, but being unemployed and unable to pay bills could be significantly more miserable. Look for an answer that identifies this failure to distinguish between different levels or types of unhappiness.

Passage Stimulus

Passage Redacted

Unlock Full Passage

13.

Morgenstern's argument is flawed in that it

Correct Answer
A
Correct. Morgenstern’s logic assumes that because both options involve being "unhappy," they’re equivalently bad. It fails to consider differences in intensity or significance; the unhappiness of unemployment could be far worse than the unhappiness of a disliked job.
Upgrade Your Prep

Ready to go beyond free explanations?

LSAT Perfection is the #1 modern LSAT prep platform, trusted by thousands of students for comprehensive test strategies, advanced drilling, and full analytics on every PrepTest.

Detailed explanations for 59 PrepTests
Advanced drillset builder
Personalized analytics
Built-in Wrong Answer Journal
Explore Perfection Plus for full LSAT prep