Logical Reasoning

PT126 · S4 · Q12 Politician: Those economists who claim

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

Politician: Those economists who claim that consumer price increases have averaged less than 3 percent over the last year are mistaken.

Conclusion

Consumer price increases have not averaged less than 3% over the past year.

Evidence

Gas is up 10%. Auto insurance, 12%. Papers, 15%. Propane, 13%. Bread, 50%.

Evaluation

Well the author has definitely convinced us that some commodities have gone up by more than 3% over the past year, but the claim he's fighting is about whether consumer prices on average have gone up 3% or more.

We could potentially call this flaw a Sampling flaw, because the author's sample of goods might be highly unrepresentative in terms of average price increases.

We could also maybe call it Part vs. Whole, since the author is thinking .

Goal

Look for something saying,

12.

The reasoning in the politician's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument

  1. impugns the character of the

    Not Ad Hominem

    The author snips a little bit, "Looks like they haven't shopped in my town", but that doesn't count as impugning their character. And the author definitely does address their argument by citing products that are counterexamples to the "less than 3% increase" claim.

    1% picked this

  2. fails to show that the

    Opposite

    The author is disagreeing with these economists, so he's not under any burden to establish that they're experts. If he were relying on their testimony, agreeing with them, then we would like to know that they're experts.

    1% picked this

  3. mistakenly infers that something is

    Bad Evidence Match

    The author does infer that something is not true: "it's not true that prices have gone up less than 3% on average", But the author presents specific examples to show that prices have gone up more than 3%. She doesn't have a premise that sounds like, "but the economists have produced insufficient evidence that prices have gone up less than 3%". This answer describes the famous flaw Unproven vs. Proven False.

    10% picked this

  4. Correct

    uses evidence drawn from a

    Why this is right

    This is a small sample, since five commodities is not a lot of data points (given that there are probably thousands of commodities). Note that the answer doesn't say that the sample is likely to be unrepresentative, because the argument didn't provide any crumbs that would incline us to think that way. But it is allowing for the possibility that these are unrepresentative.

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

    87% picked this

  5. attempts to persuade by making

    Bad Evidence Match

    Nothing in the evidence is an appeal to emotions. It's just a list of five products that have all gone up more than 3%. This answer choice refers to the famous flaw Inappropriate Appeals.

    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