Logical Reasoning

PT103 · S2 · Q17 Commissioner: I have been incorrectly

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

Commissioner: I have been incorrectly criticized for having made my decision on the power plant issue prematurely.

Conclusion

I have been incorrectly criticized for having made my decision on the power plant issue prematurely. rephrased: I did not make my decision on the power plant issue prematurely

Evidence

I based my decision on the report prepared by the neighborhood association.

Sure I haven't studied it thoroughly, but I'm sure its info is accurate and I agreed with the neighborhood association's recommendation in the past, when it came to jail relocation.

Evaluate

Since this is (the rare) Flaw EXCEPT, we will be finding four answers that we think seem like legit objections to this author.

On a first read, these are what jump out: - how can you be sure the info is accurate if you haven't studied it thoroughly? - just because you agreed with this association in the past, on a different issue, doesn't mean you will agree with them again on this issue. - how do we know that even if you had read the association's report in detail that this would have sufficed in terms of research on the power plant? should you have also considered other sources of information or opinion on the subject?

Goal

Get rid of the four answers that seem like flaws. They either call out a sketchy move the author made, or they help us to argue that the commissioner made the decision prematurely.

17.

The commissioner's argument is LEAST vulnerable to which one of the following criticisms?

  1. It takes for granted that

    Valid Objection

    This author is stating that the association's information is accurate, so it is assuming that the information is not distorted (by bias or by any other factor). If the commissioner were being thorough with researching her decision, she would cross-reference the association's information with other sources to verify it. Instead, she is just assuming the information is not distorted by bias or any other factor that would skew its accuracy.

    14% picked this

  2. Correct

    It draws a conclusion about

    Why this is right

    This says that the basis of the commissioner's conclusion was incomplete recollections. But the author's evidence were these two things: - a non-thorough read of the association's report - a conviction that the report's information is accurate - a trust in the association's recommendations, since she agreed with them on a past issue Can we label any of those pieces of evidence as "an incomplete recollection"? That would mean a partial / fuzzy memory, but that doesn't seem to match up with any of the conversation.

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

    59% picked this

  3. It takes for granted that

    Valid Objection

    Yes, the author did assume this, because she's acting like the report is sufficient research for making this power plant decision. If we negated this assumption and said, "the association's report is not the only direct evidence that needs to be considered", that would badly weaken the argument. It would make it seem like the commissioner was premature in deciding on the power plant issue, because she only based her decision on the association's report. She didn't consider all the direct evidence that needs to be considered.

    15% picked this

  4. It hastily concludes that the

    Valid Objection

    This is pointing out the very sketchy move of saying, "Although I haven't studied X thoroughly, I'm sure the information it contains is accurate". How could you be sure the information it contains is accurate if you haven't studied it thoroughly?

    3% picked this

  5. It takes for granted that

    Valid Objection

    Yes, the author is definitely assuming that "agreeing with the association's recommendation in the past" is strong reason to think that she would agree with their recommendation in the present case. If we negated this assumption it would badly weaken the argument: agreeing with them in the past does not help to justify agreeing with their current recommendation.

    9% 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