Politician: Some of my opponents

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct69% picked this

   does not address the arguments advanced by the

   Why this is right

   This answer doesn't seem too tempting to me at first, because the author obviously acknowledges the argument the opponents were making. But the author doesn't engage with the argument at all. The fact that the author sees an additional reason (bloated bureaucracy) to limit social spending, which he considers the main reason of deficit spending, is an Irrelevant Response to people saying "we should do X because of Y". Saying, "Doing X is unwarranted. After all, the main reason we'd be worried about X is Z" is a crazy irrelevant response.

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

   69%
2. B

   Bad Evidence Match12% picked this

   makes an attack on the character

   There's nothing in the evidence resembling a mention of the opponents' character.

   12%
3. C

   Contradicted14% picked this

   takes for granted that deficit spending has just

   By saying that something is the main reason for deficit spending, the author implies that there are also other causes.

   14%
4. D

   Bad Evidence Match2% picked this

   portrays opponents’ views as more extreme than they

   The premise doesn't portray the opponents' views as too extreme. It just portrays their view as somehow missing the main reason we should want to be considering reducing social spending.

   2%
5. E

   Not a Flaw2% picked this

   fails to make clear what counts as

   "excessive" = more than we should. We're not going to get a precise quantitative measurement. LSAT isn't going to test us on evaluating whether $2 billion is excessive or $20 billion. The reasoning problem with this argument is that an author rejects a rationale without talking about what's wrong with the rationale, other than to say there's an even better rationale he prefers. That may be, but the rationale of his opponents might still be "good enough". Even if the innovative directing is the better reason to see a movie, the acting of the lead actress might still be a "good enough" reason.

   2%