Logical Reasoning

PT129 · S3 · Q2 Politician: Most of those at the meeting

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: Most of those at the meeting were not persuaded by Kuyler's argument, nor should they have been, for Kuyler's argument implied that it would be improper to enter into a contract with the government; and yet—as many people know —Kuyler's company has had numerous lucrative contracts with the government.

Conclusion

We shouldn't be persuaded by Kuyler's argument.

Evidence

Kuyler implied it would be wrong to enter into a contract with the government, yet his company has had contracts with the government.

Evaluation

This argument has the reasoning of a kid yelling at this parent, What would the parent say? "Yes, but I learned it was wrong." or . When we try to invalidate someone's advice based on the fact that they previously took an opposite course of action, we ignore that they may now realize they were mistaken to take that course of action. Or, it's possible that the two situations are just not fair to compare for some reason.

Goal

Perhaps Kuyler regrets the decisions to enter into contracts with the government and is passing on his wisdom.

Perhaps the situation with Kuyler's company was very different, so in their case government contracts were not improper.

Or maybe the answer will just call out the Ad Hominem argument:

2.

Which one of the following describes a flaw in the politician's argument?

  1. It concludes that an argument

    Bad Premise Match / Not a Flaw

    Does the conclusion say that an argument is defective? Yes, it says "we should not be persuaded by Kuyler's argument". Is the evidence saying that "Kuyler failed to persuade people of the conclusion"? No. The evidence is that Kuyler has previously behaved contrary to his current advice. This would not really be a flaw, right? Isn't it correct to say that an argument is defective if it failed to persuade us of the conclusion?

    3% picked this

  2. It relies on testimony that

    Bad Premise Match

    Is the evidence biased testimony? No, the evidence is that Kuyler's company has previously behaved contrary to his current advice. This describes the famous flaw of Sampling, in which we have reason to be concerned about the sample, because it's either biased, too small, or unrepresentative.

    2% picked this

  3. Correct

    It rejects an argument merely

    Why this is right

    Does the conclusion reject an argument? Yes, it says we shouldn't be persuaded by Kuyler's argument. Is the evidence citing that the arguer, Kuyler, has behaved in a way that's inconsistent with his argument? Yup. Kuyler argued that it would be bad to enter into contract with the government, but his company has done just that in the past.

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

    91% picked this

  4. It rejects a position merely

    Bad Premise Match

    The grounds for rejecting Kuyler's argument was that his company had behaved contrary to his own advice. The premises don't break down the logical failings of Kuyler's argument (we don't even know any of this premises or assumptions). This answer describes the famous flaw Absence of Evidence.

    2% picked this

  5. It rejects an argument on

    Bad Premise Match

    The premise was about Kuyler's past behavior, not any appeal to popular opinion. This is a famous flaw, Inappropriate Appeal, in which the author inappropriately relies on opinion, emotion, or someone with dubious expertise on the matter.

    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