Logical Reasoning

PT108 · S3 · Q14 Wu: Jurgens is dishonest and

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

Wu: Jurgens is dishonest and so should not be elected mayor.

Wu's Conclusion (so)

Jurgens shouldn't be elected mayor.

Wu's Evidence

Jurgens is dishonest.

Miller's Conclusion

Jurgens should be elected mayor.

Miller's Evidence

Honest people usually are not tough enough to run a city.

Evaluate

Miller's arguing

First of all, we should ask about this Assumed Difference in Miller's argument: are dishonest people usually tough enough to run a city?

We might also pick at the usually part of Miller's argument. Honest people aren't usually tough enough, but there are some honest people who are tough enough, right? Shouldn't we aspire to get a mayor that is both honest and tough enough?

Finally, why is Miller picking Jurgens to be mayor above all the other dishonest people we could choose? Like, even if we accepted that we should get a dishonest person to be mayor, why should it be Jurgens? How did Jurgens leap past all the other dishonest candidates we might compare?

Goal

It's hard to turn this conversation into an abstract model, although it resembles the famous Unproven vs. Proven False flaw because Miller disagrees with how Wu was arguing and ends up concluding the polar opposite.

Wu was trying to prove that J shouldn't be mayor because Wu thinks dishonesty is disqualifying. If Miller disagrees with that logic, he can say, But that would leave us at the agnostic conclusion of, , not the polar opposite conclusion of "Jurgens should be mayor".

Let's look for an answer where the 2nd person finds fault with the 1st person's argument and ends up concluding the opposite idea, without really supporting that opposite idea.

And maybe it will involve the usually aspect, like failing to consider that the thing were talking about might be an exception to the usual.

14.

Miller's questionable reasoning in which one of the following dialogues is most closely parallel to Miller's questionable reasoning in the dialogue above?

  1. Correct

    Wu: We should not go

    Miller: Yes, we should. Food

    Why this is right

    This has a lot of similarities. Person 1 is saying we shouldn't do X because of Y. Person 2 is saying that we should do X because you usually don't want Y. Original: P1: we shouldn't elect J because isn't honest. P2: we should elect J because you usually don't want honesty. (A) P1: we shouldn't go to that rest, because doesn't have quick service. P2: we should go back to that rest, because you often don't want quick service. It duplicates the flaw of concluding the polar opposite (even though Miller hasn't supported the idea that we should go to the restaurant). And it duplicates the flaw of Assuming a Difference, "is food that is served slow usually of good quality?"

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

    66% picked this

  2. Wu: Bailey should not be

    Miller: Yes, he should. Aggressive

    Bad Evidence Match

    This looks solid in terms of P2 concluding the polar opposite conclusion. But Wu's premise talks about aggressive and Miller's counterpremise also talks about aggressive. In the original, Wu's premise talks about dishonest and Miller's counterpremise talks about honest. We need that mismatch in order to duplicate the Assumes a Difference flaw. (In the correct answer the premise is about slow service and the counterpremise is about quick service.)

    27% picked this

  3. Wu: We should not paint

    Miller: Yes, we should. Bright

    Bad Evidence Match

    This looks solid in terms of P2 concluding the polar opposite conclusion. But Wu's premise talks about bright and Miller's counterpremise also talks about bright. In the original, Wu's premise talks about dishonest and Miller's counterpremise talks about honest. We need that mismatch in order to duplicate the Assumes a Difference flaw. (In the correct answer the premise is about slow service and the counterpremise is about quick service.)

    2% picked this

  4. Wu: We should not upgrade

    Miller: Yes, we should. The

    Bad Evidence Match

    This looks solid in terms of P2 concluding the polar opposite conclusion. But Wu's premise talks about expensive and Miller's counterpremise also talks about costing more. In the original, Wu's premise talks about dishonest and Miller's counterpremise talks about honest. We need that mismatch in order to duplicate the Assumes a Difference flaw. The flaw in this one is more of an Illegal Reversal. Miller is saying "if best, then usually expensive", so he's sort of reasoning backwards that since this software is expensive, it's probably the best.

    2% picked this

  5. Wu: This job applicant should

    Miller: No, we should hire

    Bad Evidence/Conclusion Match

    P2's conclusion isn't the opposite of P1's. It actually suggests a different person to hire, rather than just saying "This job applicant shouldn't be hired". We do get a shift from Wu's premise about experience to Miller's premise about inexperience. But the flaw here isn't Assuming a Difference. It's more like failing to acknowledge what Wu just said. Miller is making an excuse of inexperienced applicants saying "everyone lacks experience when first starting out". It's totally fair to think, "people don't lack experience when they aren't just first starting out." I mean, it's essentially a tautology (a self-justifying truth) to say that "people aren't inexperienced when they already have some experience".

    3% 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