Question 4: Conditional Statements (Flaw Recognition)

Question

Premise: All artists are creative.

Premise: Some creative people are musicians.

Conclusion: Therefore, some musicians must be artists.

Which of the following identifies the flaw in the argument?

(A) It confuses a sufficient condition for a necessary condition.

(B) It assumes a relationship between two groups without evidence of overlap.

(C) It overlooks the possibility that creativity is not necessary for being an artist.

(D) It assumes that all musicians are also artists.

(E) It presumes that no creative person could be neither an artist nor a musician.

what technique should i be using to answer a question like this

Answer 1

Hey Sam thanks for your question!

To approach Flaw Recognition questions like this on the LSAT Logical Reasoning section, you should break the problem into structured steps to identify the logical flaw in the argument. Here’s how to optimize your technique:

Step 1: Break Down the Argument

1. Understand the premises and the conclusion.
2. Premise 1: All artists are creative. (If A → C)
3. Premise 2: Some creative people are musicians. (Some C are M)
4. Conclusion: Some musicians must be artists. (Some M → A)
5. Diagram the argument using conditional logic.
6. All artists → Creative: A→C
7. Some creative → Musicians: Some C are M
8. Analyze the conclusion.
9. The argument concludes Some M are A, but this isn't supported by the premises because there's no direct evidence of overlap between M (musicians) and A (artists).

Step 2: Identify the Flaw

1. Look for gaps in the reasoning:
2. The premises establish a subset relationship between artists and creativity, and another subset between creativity and musicians.
3. However, the argument assumes a connection between musicians and artists, which isn't justified. The overlap between A and M is not proven.

Step 3: Eliminate Wrong Answer Choices

1. (A) It confuses a sufficient condition for a necessary condition.
2. No, the argument doesn't misinterpret necessary and sufficient conditions. The problem isn't a mistaken reversal or negation.
3. (B) It assumes a relationship between two groups without evidence of overlap.
4. Yes! The argument assumes M and A overlap based on the shared connection to C, but this isn’t supported by the premises.
5. (C) It overlooks the possibility that creativity is not necessary for being an artist.
6. Irrelevant. The argument explicitly assumes creativity is a necessary condition for being an artist.
7. (D) It assumes that all musicians are also artists.
8. No, the argument doesn't assume All M→A; it concludes Some M→A.
9. (E) It presumes that no creative person could be neither an artist nor a musician.
10. Irrelevant. The argument doesn’t make any assumptions about individuals outside A and M.

Step 4: Confirm the Correct Answer

1. The flaw is an unjustified assumption of overlap between two groups (artists and musicians) that share a common relationship with a third group (creative people). Therefore, (B) is correct.

General Tips for Similar Questions

1. Diagram relationships (if necessary):
2. Use arrows and subset symbols to clarify the logical structure of premises and the conclusion.
3. Look for missing links:
4. Check if the argument connects groups or conditions without evidence.
5. Be aware of common flaw patterns:
6. Assumed overlap or equivalence.
7. Necessary vs. sufficient confusion.
8. Causation from correlation.
9. Whole-part confusion.
10. Eliminate irrelevant options quickly:
11. Focus on flaws in reasoning directly tied to the argument.

By applying this systematic approach, you'll become faster and more accurate with Flaw Recognition questions.

Let me know if you have any questions on that!

Happy to work with students looking to OPTIMIZE their LSAT Prep.