Logical Reasoning

PT101 · S2 · Q6 Several excellent candidates have

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Several excellent candidates have been proposed for the presidency of United Wire, and each candidate would bring to the job different talents and experience.

Conclusion

Jones is best qualified to be the new president of UW.

Evidence

None of the other candidates for president of UW have Jones's unique set of qualifications.

Evaluate

Given That none of the other proposed candidates have J's unique set of qualifications,

How Could We Argue that someone else is equally or better qualified to be the new president?

It seems important that the conclusion is just "who is the most qualified", not necessarily . We can't just introduce other considerations that are possible negatives about Jones (she has exorbitant salary demands / she doesn't get along as well with other people).

So we can only look at qualifications vs. qualifications. Does J's qualifications have some advantage that we can offset with a disadvantage?

We're stuck with this one, very vague, premise that no one else has J's unique set.

Okay, does "unique set = best set"?

No other man has my unique set of facial features, but I definitely do not think I have the best set of facial features.

The other gap seems to be that we started by comparing Jones to all the other proposed candidates, but the conclusion seems to be saying Jones is best qualified, out of everyone.

So maybe we could object that even if J is best qualified out of the set of proposed candidates, there's someone equally/better qualified that isn't a proposed candidate.

Goal

Look for an answer saying "unique ≠ best", or one saying "best of the proposed ≠ best anywhere".

6.

The argument is vulnerable to criticism on the ground that it

  1. uses flattery to win over

    Out of Scope: flattery

    There aren't any opponents in this conversation, and the author isn't trying to flatter them. He says something flattering about Jones, but she doesn't hold an opposing position. This sounds kind of like an Inappropriate Appeal to Emotion.

    3% picked this

  2. refutes a distorted version of

    Wrong Flaw

    This answer describes a Straw Man flaw, in which you misrepresent your opponent's position. There's no opponent here that our author is rebutting, so there's no way this could match the argument.

    2% picked this

  3. Correct

    seeks to distinguish one member

    Why this is right

    The argument seeks to distinguish Jones on the basis of her having a unique set of qualifications. Wouldn't each candidate have a unique set of qualifications? It's sort of like my example before -- just because my facial features are unique doesn't make them the best facial features. Everyone's set of facial features are unique.

    Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    79% picked this

  4. supports a universal claim on

    Wrong Flaw

    This refers to a Sampling Flaw, in which the conclusion assumes that something that's true for a smaller group of people is also true for a larger group of people. The conclusion of this argument is that "Jones is the best qualified", which is definitely a specific claim, not a universal claim. Universal claims offer a truth that applies to every item in a category.

    11% picked this

  5. describes an individual in terms

    Wrong Flaw

    This isn't quite a Whole to Part description, but it has that general feel that "we knew something about a group and illicitly tried to apply it to an individual". We describe Jones as having a unique set of qualifications. Does "unique set of qualifications" only appropriately refer to a group? Of course not. You could say that an individual is uniquely qualified for a job. You could also say that a pool of applicants is uniquely qualified for a job. If anything, it's harder to apply that description to the group.

    5% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free