Logical Reasoning

PT128 · S3 · Q23 Councillor Miller opposes all proposals

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

Councillor Miller opposes all proposals to raise taxes.

Evidence

CM opposes any proposal that raises taxes. CP support raising funding for schools, which are funded entirely by property taxes.

Conclusion

CC's proposal to increase school funding by raising property taxes will be opposed by CM and supported by CP.

Evaluate

I'm not exactly sure what they want us to identify as the flaw here. Miller will oppose this proposal, because he opposes all proposals that raise taxes.

The looseness would probably have to do more with not knowing whether Philopoulos will definitely support CC's proposal. It seems like someone could be broadly in favor of increased funding for schools but still opposed to one specific proposal that involves increased funding for schools.

Goal

I'd be looking for something like this: - Entity 1 always rejects X. - Entity 2 likes Y. - Thus, Entity 3's proposal to do Y via doing X will be rejected by Entity 1 and accepted by Entity 2.

23.

Which one of the following exhibits flawed reasoning most similar to the flawed reasoning exhibited by the argument above?

  1. Tara finds Ms. Burke's English

    Bad Premise Match

    We don't really have the right type of ideas to start matching this one up. There's no "Entity 1 always rejects X. Entity 2 likes Y." There's just a premise that says "Entity 1 thinks this thing is more X than that thing."

    7% picked this

  2. Correct

    Jane refuses to live downtown.

    Why this is right

    - Entity 1 always rejects X. Jane rejects downtown. - Entity 2 likes Y. Denise likes renting penthouse. - Thus, Entity 3's proposal to do Y via doing X will be rejected by Entity 1 and accepted by Entity 2. Joilet (rhymes-with-Toilet) Towers downtown apartment complex will be rejected by Jane but accepted by Denise This commits the same flaw with the 2nd person -- they're broadly in favor of renting a penthouse, but that doesn't mean we can be sure they endorse this specific penthouse rental.

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

    71% picked this

  3. Mayor Watson promised never to

    Only One Premise

    The easiest way to see this can't match is that there's only one premise. The formula we're trying to match needs two premises, because we need to hear about one entity rejecting something and another entity broadly endorsing a different thing. ORIGINAL Prem 1- Entity 1 always rejects X. Prem 2 - Entity 2 likes Y. Conc - Thus, Entity 3's proposal to do Y via doing X will be rejected by Entity 1 and accepted by Entity 2.

    5% picked this

  4. Ed dislikes any food that

    Weak Conclusion Match

    This has some promise. - Entity 1 always rejects X. Ed dislikes very sweet food. - Entity 2 likes Y. Bill likes most very sweet food. - Thus, Entity 3's proposal to do Y via doing X will be rejected by Entity 1 and accepted by Entity 2. these very sweet brownies will be disliked by Ed and probably liked by Bill. That's super close, but the conclusion differs in strength/certainty from that of the original. Saying that Bill will probably like the brownies is a more responsible, less flawed conclusion than saying Bill will definitely like the brownies. The original argument's conclusion was flawed because it was TOO CERTAIN that CP would endorse this specific proposal to increase school funding. It didn't say, as it should have, that "CP will probably support CC's proposal."

    15% picked this

  5. In the past, the citizens

    Only One Premise

    The easiest way to see this can't match is that there's only one premise. The formula we're trying to match needs two premises, because we need to hear about one entity rejecting something and another entity broadly endorsing a different thing. ORIGINAL Prem 1- Entity 1 always rejects X. Prem 2 - Entity 2 likes Y. Conc - Thus, Entity 3's proposal to do Y via doing X will be rejected by Entity 1 and accepted by Entity 2.

    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