Weird LSAT Question

[myss571]

Hi, could somebody help me out with this question please? I can't figure out which one is the best answer and the book has used this question as an example in the "Logical Reasoning" Strategies section without actually giving any explanation.

_____________________________ _____________________________ _

Most radicals who argue for violent revolution and complete overthrow of our existing society have no clear idea what will emerge from the destruction. They just assert that things are so bad now that any change would have to be a change for the better. But surely this is mistaken, for things might actually turn out to be worse.

The most effective point that can be raised against this argument is that the author says nothing about,

(A) the manner in which the radicals might foment their revolution.
(B) the specific results of the revolution that would be changes for the worse.
(C) the economic arguments the radicals use to persuade people to join in their cause.
(D) the fact that most people are really satisfied with the present system so that the chance of total revolution is very small.
(E) the loss of life and property that is likely to accompany total destruction of a society.

[ssasiflow]

I think it's D! lol

[wolfman1977]

I'd say "B".

[nathanielmark]

B is the least worst answer (IMO)

[grahamers]

I guess you didn't like the answers you go on the Princeton Review forum?  Well, for the record, here was what I said there:


It's been a bit since I took the LSAT, but I got a 170, so I'll give it a shot. This does not seem to be a good question example. I don't recall seeing anything this bad on the test. My guess is that NONE of the answers are correct. To break it down:

"Most radicals who argue for violent revolution and complete overthrow of our existing society have no clear idea what will emerge from the destruction. They just assert that things are so bad now that any change would have to be a change for the better. But surely this is mistaken, for things might actually turn out to be worse." Is the statement.

"The most effective point that can be raised against this argument is that the author says nothing about," Is the question you are trying to answer.

That is, what did he leave out that would have made his argument better?

I would choose:

(B) the specific results of the revolution that would be changes for the worse.

It is relevent to his argument of the possibility of things turning worse and if he had included information about this, his argument would have been better. All the other answers would be irrelevent to the arguers argument about things turning worse.

If you get this on the test, skip it. 

PS: I would use only real questions from the LSAT to study, not this one.

[kinkyone]

Ginatio, why don't ya better go and @#!* a cucumber???

[Skittles]

I'm going to say 'A' or 'B'... both are equally least wrong.  But it is a BAD question. I hate to say it, but it looks like a Kaplan question.

[dex]

The question comes from ARCO's TestMasters book -- I run into it yesterday when fishing through the shelves of my local BN

[superiorlobe]

I have an ARCO Logic Workbook, which has got to be one of the worst LSAT books I ever bought.  There are a couple game examples in which the choices contain two right answers.  In the explanation section they go through all the choices and don't even seem to notice the fact that they explain that both answers are correct.  I just couldn't believe it.  I stared at that stupid example for a very long time, unable to comprehend a mistake so blatant.  Also, even when they don't make clear mistakes, the games are nothing at all like real LSAT games.  So I don't recommend buying ARCO books unless they have really incredibly dramatically improved since the 2000 edition, which is the one I have.

All that being said, the "best" answer (in my humple opinion) to the question above is B.

[coeruleus]

The question comes from ARCO's TestMasters book --

I was thinking TestMasters uses *real*, licensed LSAT questions ... it looks like it is not so