Logical Reasoning

PT131 · S3 · Q5 Challenger: The mayor claims she

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

Challenger: The mayor claims she has vindicated those who supported her in the last election by fulfilling her promise to increase employment opportunities in our city, citing the 8 percent increase in the number of jobs in the city since she took office.

Challenger

The mayor claims she delivered on her promise to boost jobs in our city, citing an 8% increase since she took office, but that 8% increase is wholly attributable to a national government office that relocated to the city, bringing all of its employees with it.

Mayor's Response

See? Even my challenger admits that jobs are up 8%, which is more job growth than that of my predecessors. Good news for the unemployed voters of this city!

Evaluation

The point the challenger was making was that even though the total number of jobs has risen by 8%, there hasn't been an increase in "employment opportunities in our city", since those new jobs that came to the city were already staffed by employees from outside the city. So, yes, the city has more jobs than before, but city residents didn't get any of those jobs.

The mayor's response fails to acknowledge the challenger's point, and just reiterates the misleading statistic that jobs have gone up by 8%.

Goal

Look for an answer saying that the mayor fails to address the point the challenger was making, or something pointing to the distinction between "jobs going up" and .

As a response to the challenger, the mayor's answer is flawed in that it

takes for granted that those
Out of Scope
Out of Scope: "those who supported the mayor" The mayor is stating/assuming that unemployed voters want jobs. That's all we know about what she believes about her citizens. We wouldn't be able to accuse her of assuming anything else about any of her citizens.
0% picked this
does not consider whether the
Irrelevant Distinction
No one is comparing the 8% job growth to the unemployment rate. No one is arguing that she completely wiped out unemployment. She's just saying 8% job growth is higher than the job growth achieved by previous mayors.
2% picked this
Correct
fails to address the challenger's
Why this is right
This is saying that the mayor completely ignored the thrust of the objection: "Yes, 8% more jobs, but none of our local citizens were eligible for those jobs; they were staffed by national outsiders."
Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
94% picked this
ignores the challenger's contention that
Out of Scope: "altered priorities"
The challenger was never saying, "Hey, you've brought in these outsiders, increased the voting base, and changed the priorities of our constituency". We can infer that the voting base has probably increased, but we have no idea if voting priorities have changed, and the challenger was certainly not contending that they had.
1% picked this
explicitly attributes to the challenger
Bad Premise Match
The mayor explicitly attributes to the challenger the belief that employment statistics reveal an 8% uptick in number of jobs. The challenger did assert / imply that.
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