how to achieve 90% hit rate in LSAT :(,,,,current level is only 60% :(

[lost_into_wild]

The proper way to plan a scientific project is first to decide its goal and then to plan the best way to accomplish that goal. The United States space station project does not conform to this ideal. When the Cold War ended, the project lost its original purpose, so another purpose was quickly grafted onto the project that of conducting limited-gravity experiments, even though such experiments can be done in an alternative way. It is, therefore, abundantly clear that the space station should not be built.

The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument

(A) attacks the proponents of a claim rather than arguing against the claim itself.

(B) Presupposes what it sets out to prove.

© Faults planners for not foreseeing a certain event, when in fact that event was not foreseeable.

(D) Contains statements that lead to a self-contradiction.

(E) Concludes that a shortcoming is fatal having produced evidence only of the existence of that shortcoming.

 

my option is B...the argument has to prove that alternate way is the best way before it concludes sth...so it presuppose what it has to prove by definition mentioned in the opening line of argument.

 

 

guys..hit back...

[abhasjha]

IMO - E

 

We’re first presented with an ideal, followed by a particular project that doesn’t

conform with the ideal. Next is a statement of why the ideal is not met. The author

concludes then that the project is completely flawed because the ideal is not met. The

flaw is that while the space project doesn’t meet the scientific planning “ideal” (the

shortcoming), that doesn’t necessarily imply that the project is doomed. Nothing

suggests why non-conformity to the ideal is fatal.

(A) There is no ad hominem attack (the Latin name for attacking a person rather than the

person’s logic) here.

(B) This argument is not circular — that is, its evidence and conclusion aren’t

functionally identical. We’re given a statement of principle, followed by a nonconforming

example. The conclusion is a new statement, different from the original

premise. It may be poor logic (in fact it is poor logic), but at least it’s different from the

evidence.

© If any fault is assigned to the project planners, it’s only for creating a new goal midstream,

not for failing to foresee the end of the Cold War.

(D) The argument here is not self-contradictory. It’s weak, insofar as insufficient cause

is given for scrapping the project, but as an argument it’s fairly direct and

unambiguous.

• Make sure you understand the testmakers’ favorite argumentative flaws, such as the ad hominem attack and circular reasoning (represented by (A) and (B),respectively). Familiarity with these flaws allows you to eliminate these two choices quickly.

[spartacuss]

answer is E !

 

 

But for other reasons. shortcoming can be that alternative way is the best way- because this state of affairs would kill the plan. But if our way is better than the alternative that exists, than the plan falls under the ideal criterion ( 1. have goal- new, but no matter and 2. executed on the best way ), and can be build reasonably. This is how E flaws the obviously wrong reasoning, on account that the exsistence of alternative doesn't necessary mean the supremacy of alternative over the one chosen for plan execution !