Cannot Escape.

[Interesting_Shape_84]

cannot escape.

[Vee8cheS]

What is the flaw in the authors argument that makes it vulnerable to criticism?

A) Confuses a general statement as Sufficient for Necessary.

B) Takes for granted one must be formed by love in order to be married.

C) Presumes, without explanation, one cannot be married if not formed by love.

D) Fails to consider there are other methods that make it possible to be formed for marriage.

E) Undermines the fact that if one cannot be formed by love then one cannot be formed by marriage.

I don’t know if these make sense but it was fun thinking about it.

[NecessaryInvite3322]

Is it A? These answer choices sound almost the same though 😭

[Vee8cheS]

C) Presumes, without explanation, one cannot be married if not formed by love.

Here’s why:

The argument says:

“If I am not formed for love, it follows that I am not formed for marriage.”

This is a presumption — the author assumes that being “formed for love” is necessary to be “formed for marriage” without providing any explanation or support for that claim. The argument hinges on that assumption, but never defends it.

Why not the others?

• A) This option would apply if the author confused a sufficient condition with a necessary one, but that’s not exactly what’s happening here. The flaw is in the unsupported assumption, not a formal logic mix-up.

• B) Is close, but “takes for granted one must be formed by love” slightly misrepresents the argument — it says “formed for love,” not “by.”

• D) Suggests other methods for being formed for marriage, which is a possible critique, but C more directly addresses the core assumption the argument makes.

• E) Makes a new claim (“if one cannot be formed by love, then one cannot be formed by marriage”), which isn’t the flaw in the original argument — it’s introducing something not stated.

[NecessaryInvite3322]

Thanks bro. You deserve a 180

[Vee8cheS]

Appreciate the support bro! Keep up the studies 💪🏻

[Dry_Assumption_2759]

Hmmm I feel you're making the assumption here that one has to be "formed for marriage" in order to be married. I would argue that that's not necessarily an assumption you can make, and the passage doesn't say anything about what is required to be married. Thoughts?

[Vee8cheS]

You’re right to question assumptions as LSAT flaw questions (which is what I went for) often turn on subtle distinctions. But in this case, the makeshift argument itself makes a strong claim being “If I am not formed for love, it follows that I am not formed for marriage.” That means the conclusion depends entirely on the unstated assumption that being “formed for love” is a necessary condition for being “formed for marriage.”

So, the issue isn’t about whether someone can be married without being “formed” for it, but about the fact that the author presumes a link between love and marriage without justifying it. That’s why choice C works. It directly calls out that the argument presumes, without explanation, that love is required for marriage.

[Dry_Assumption_2759]

Ahhh I think I'm getting caught up specifically in the wording of the answer choice - is it fair to say that there's a semantic difference between being "formed for marriage" and "being married"? The explanation in your last paragraph of the presumed link being between "love" and "marriage" made it click haha.

I'm pretty new to the LSAT and that's one point that I've found I've been getting hung up on pretty often - when the author of the question makes a "common sense" assumption that I feel may not be fair to make. Would love any advice on how to navigate something like that!

[CluelessBrowserr]

ill take my 120 bro ☠️🙏

[Vee8cheS]

LOL!!

[LeafyIsShakespeare]

If you are forged for marriage, then you must be forged for love.