Bunuel
Counselor: Constantly comparing oneself to those one sees as more able or more successful almost invariably leads to self- disparagement. Conversely, constantly comparing oneself to those one sees as less able or less successful almost invariably leads to being dismissive of others. So, those who for the most part refrain from comparing themselves to others will most likely be, on the whole, self-accepting and accepting of others.
The counselor’s reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism because it
(A) overlooks the possibility that one can compare oneself both to those one perceives to be more able and more successful than oneself and to those one perceives to be less able and less successful than oneself
(B) overlooks the possibility that constantly comparing oneself to others may have beneficial effects that those who refrain from making such comparisons are deprived of
(C) takes for granted that if one is both dismissive of others and self-disparaging, one will not be self-accepting and accepting of others
(D) overlooks the possibility that self-disparagement and being dismissive of others can result from something other than comparing oneself to others
(E) takes for granted that whenever one compares oneself to others one sees them as more successful and more able than oneself or less successful and less able than oneself
EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT
The argument proposes two ways to be miserable: 1) Compare yourself to people better off than you, and you’ll feel like a loser. 2) Compare yourself to people worse off than you, and you’ll become a pompous dick. Okay, I’m with you so far. But then the conclusion goes off the rails with, “Therefore if you don’t do 1 or 2, you won’t feel like a loser and you won’t be a dick.” But that’s the classic error of conditional reasoning, assuming that the arrow goes both ways! A direct parallel to this stupid argument would be, “If you’re at AT&T Park then you’re in San Francisco, and if you’re at Dodger Stadium then you’re in Los Angeles, so if you’re not at AT&T Park or Dodger Stadium then you’re not in San Francisco or Los Angeles.” That is foolish.
The question asks us to find a weakness or flaw in the logic, and I think I’ve done that pretty well already. Let’s see what the answer choices have for us.
A) Nah, this is something like “overlooks the possibility that one can compare oneself to both people that are better and worse than oneself,” which is interesting, but not the biggest problem in the argument. I want an answer that points out the devastating sufficient-vs.-necessary flaw. Next please.
B) This is something like “overlooks the possibility that being a dick might have beneficial effects,” which is also not what I am looking for. Let’s keep looking.
C) The argument never considered what would happen if one was both a dick and felt like a loser, so this can’t possibly be the flaw in the argument. The argument did not do this.
D) Yep. The argument assumed that if you don’t compare yourself to those better off than you then you can’t feel like a loser, which is simply not true. There are probably
lots of ways to feel like a loser. Similarly, the argument assumed that if you don’t compare yourself to the less fortunate, you can’t be a dick. And we all know that there are lots of ways to be a dick. This answer choice describes the problem with the classic sufficient-vs.-necessary flaw. This has got to be it.
E) The argument didn’t mention what would happen if you compared yourself to someone in the middle (neither better or worse off than oneself), and maybe this is a shortcoming in the argument. But answer D describes a classic flaw that is tested over and over and over on the LSAT.
Our answer is D.