LSAT Explanation PT 20, S4, Q2: The law firm of Sutherlin, Pérez,

LSAT Question Stem

The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Flaw question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is C. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

Let's first analyze the argument in the passage and identify its structure. The argument can be broken down as follows:

Premise 1: The law firm of Sutherlin, Pérez, and Associates is one of the most successful law firms whose primary specialization is in criminal defense cases, with a better than 90 percent acquittal rate.

Premise 2: Dalton is an attorney whose primary specialization is in divorce cases.

Conclusion: Dalton certainly cannot be a member of Sutherlin, Pérez, and Associates.

The question type of this problem is a Flaw question, which asks us to identify the flaw in the reasoning of the argument.

Before discussing the answer choices, let's come up with an "Evaluate" question for this argument. A good "Evaluate" question for this argument would be: "Can an attorney with a primary specialization in divorce cases be a member of a law firm that primarily specializes in criminal defense cases?"

Now, let's discuss each answer choice:

a) The argument does not offer pieces of evidence that are mutually contradictory. Both pieces of evidence (the law firm's specialization and Dalton's specialization) are consistent with each other.

b) This answer choice is irrelevant to the argument's flaw. The argument is not about whether a person can practice law without being a member of a law firm; it's about whether Dalton can be a member of Sutherlin, Pérez, and Associates given his specialization.

c) This is the correct answer choice. The argument concludes that Dalton cannot be a member of the law firm because he does not have the same primary specialization (criminal defense cases) as the law firm. However, it is possible for a law firm to have members with different specializations, so this conclusion is flawed.

d) The argument does not take a high rate of success among the members of a group to indicate that the successes are evenly spread among the members. The 90 percent acquittal rate is mentioned, but it is not used to make any conclusions about the distribution of success among the members of the law firm.

e) The argument does not state a generalization based on a selection that is not representative of the group. It simply states the primary specialization and success rate of the law firm and compares it to Dalton's primary specialization.

In summary, the correct answer is C, as it accurately identifies the flaw in the argument's reasoning. The argument wrongly concludes that Dalton cannot be a member of the law firm solely because he does not have the same primary specialization as the law firm.