December 2010 LSAT Section 3 Question 7

When the famous art collector Vidmar died, a public auction of her collection, the largest privately owned, was held....

Julie-V on August 30, 2019

Whole-to-Part Breakdown

Hi LSAT Max, I see where the whole-to-part conflict is happening, but I would like some clarity because I first saw it as a part-to-whole flaw. I thought that MacNeil's conclusion was that he couldn't afford any one of Vidmar's art because the whole collection is expensive (so in my head, can't buy one because all are expensive = part-to-whole). Did I reverse the logic of his sentence? Thanks in advance for the help!

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

Irina on August 30, 2019

@Julie,

Yes, it sounds like you might have reversed the logic. The argument is saying because the collection as a whole is among the most valuable ever -this is the "whole" part, then I cannot afford any of the individual art pieces - this is the "part" piece. The whole-to-part flaw basically says that because a composite entity possesses a certain characteristic, each of its parts possesses the same characteristic. For example:

United States population is growing = whole
Then, the population of each state must be growing = part

This is a whole to part flawed logic because the population of some states can decline or stay the same, but the overall population could still be growing.

Does this help?

Let me know if you have any further questions.