Flawed ReasoningDiff: Easy
Logic Breakdown
Passage Summary: This theater usually picks famous writers and they picked my neighbor, so she must be famous.
Conclusion: Michaela must be a critically acclaimed playwright.
Reasoning: The local theater often produces plays by acclaimed writers, and they are producing Michaela's new play.
Analysis: Clark's argument suffers from a classic 'most vs. all' flaw. Just because the theater *often* picks acclaimed writers doesn't mean they *always* do, nor does it mean every single writer they select fits that description. Look for an answer choice that points out the argument ignores the possibility that Michaela is one of the exceptions to the theater's general preference.
Conclusion: Michaela must be a critically acclaimed playwright.
Reasoning: The local theater often produces plays by acclaimed writers, and they are producing Michaela's new play.
Analysis: Clark's argument suffers from a classic 'most vs. all' flaw. Just because the theater *often* picks acclaimed writers doesn't mean they *always* do, nor does it mean every single writer they select fits that description. Look for an answer choice that points out the argument ignores the possibility that Michaela is one of the exceptions to the theater's general preference.
Passage Stimulus
Passage Redacted
Unlock Full Passage8.The reasoning in Clark's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument
Correct Answer
C
The reasoning assumes that because critical acclaim is one of the main factors considered, any play that gets selected must meet that factor—wrongly turning a considered factor into a necessary condition.
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