Logical Reasoning

PT126 · S4 · Q17 Politician: Some of my opponents

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: Some of my opponents have argued on theoretical grounds in favor of reducing social spending.

Conclusion

It's unwarranted to reduce social expenditure

Evidence

Some said that we should reduce social expenditure, on theoretical grounds that we spend too much on social programs. But they should have been highlighting the bigger problem with our excessive spending: the government is just too big because of self-aggrandizing bureaucracies and politicians.

Evaluation

I'm confused -- doesn't the author want to reduce social spending? He's saying it's unwarranted to do so because some people want to do so for the not-#1 reason?

If you wanted to see a movie because of the lead actress, would it make any sense if I said,

Goal

This sort of has an Unproven vs. Proven False vibe, since the author is saying, . But we might just see an answer saying, .

17.

A reasoning flaw in the politician's argument is that the argument

  1. Correct

    does not address the arguments

    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.

    70% picked this

  2. makes an attack on the

    Bad Evidence Match

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

    12% picked this

  3. takes for granted that deficit

    Contradicted

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

    14% picked this

  4. portrays opponents’ views as more

    Bad Evidence Match

    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% picked this

  5. fails to make clear what

    Not a Flaw

    "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% 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