Logical Reasoning

PT114 · S4 · Q17 Mullen has proposed to raise

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

Mullen has proposed to raise taxes on the rich, who made so much money during the past decade.

Conclusion (so)

Mullen's proposal does not deserve our consideration. rephrase: We shouldn't even consider raising taxes on the rich.

Evidence

Mullen's tax records show heavy investment in business during the last decade and large profits.

Evaluate

This is confusing. In general, when we're doing Flaw or Parallel Flaw and we see a Rebuttal style argument, we want to immediately start thinking about the two famous flaws related to rebuttals: - Ad Hominem (dismissing someone's point of view because of their biased interest / conflicting past behavior) - Unproven vs. Proven False (concluding that because someone failed to prove X that X is therefore false)

This argument feels just like Ad Hominem: M's proposal doesn't deserve our consideration, because of [some personal fact about Muller].

The personal fact about Muller seems to be that he might be a rich person (he's enjoyed large profits over the past decade).

If he were proposing to lower taxes on the rich, we might be like, "That seems pretty self-serving, Mullen!" But he's actually suggesting that we raise taxes on the rich, so it's sort of a selfless suggestion?

So this would fall under that 2nd category of Ad Hominem where we say,

Goal

Either way we're looking for an Ad Hominem flaw, but it will probably be in the style of

17.

The flawed reasoning in the argument above is most similar to the flawed reasoning in which one of the following?

  1. Do not vote for Smith’s

    Bad Evidence Match

    In this argument, Smith's suggestion would be a self-interested one. He is a working parent and his proposal would help working parents. In the original argument, Mullen suggested raising taxes on the rich, which goes against his self-interest, since he apparently got rich over the past decade.

    8% picked this

  2. Correct

    Do not put any credence

    Why this is right

    Just like in the original, someone is suggesting something: - let's ban smoking in public places - let's raise taxes on the rich The author is dismissing this idea: - Do not put any credence into this proposal - This proposal does not deserve our consideration And the premise is that the proposal conflicts with the person who proposed it: - Dr. H is a smoker - Mullen is a rich person

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

    73% picked this

  3. The previous witness’s testimony ought

    Bad Evidence/Conclusion Match

    In this argument, we don't have one person suggesting / proposing something. So the conclusion isn't rejecting a suggestion / proposal. It's just rejecting testimony. And the grounds for it isn't that the proposal would go against the self-interest of the person proposing it. Rather the grounds for dismissing the testimony is simply that this person is a lying, fraudulent person we shouldn't trust.

    4% picked this

  4. Board member Timm’s proposal to

    Bad Evidence Match

    In this argument, Timm's proposal would be a self-interested one. His daughter is a middle manager and his proposal would raise the salaries of middle managers. In the original argument, Mullen suggested raising taxes on the rich, which goes against his self-interest, since he apparently got rich over the past decade.

    14% picked this

  5. Dr. Wasow’s analysis of the

    Bad Evidence/Conclusion Match

    In this argument, we don't have one person suggesting / proposing something. So the conclusion isn't rejecting a suggestion / proposal. It's just rejecting an analysis. And the grounds for it isn't that the proposal would go against the self-interest of the person proposing it. Rather the grounds for dismissing the analysis is simply that this person doesn't have any past expertise in this field.

    1% 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