Logical Reasoning

PT133 · S3 · Q14 Council member: I recommend

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

Council member: I recommend that the abandoned shoe factory be used as a municipal emergency shelter.

Conclusion

The shoe factory would be a better site for the municipal emergency shelter than the courthouse would be.

Evidence

The people who prefer the courthouse have provided no evidence of this.

Evaluate

This is a He Said / She Said type situation, where we have two conflicting opinions and no way to choose between them. Just because the courthouse crew has no evidence their site is better doesn't mean that the shoe factory crew is immediately right. What's their evidence?

This is also a Unproven vs. Proven False situation, where the author goes from saying

Goal

Let's look for something sounding like Unproven vs. Proven False or something making the objection that no evidence has been offered in favor of using the shoe factory.

14.

A questionable technique used in the council member's argument is that of

  1. asserting that a lack of

    Out of Scope

    Out of Scope: lack of evidence against view The argument asserts that there is a lack of evidence for the view that "the courthouse is a better site", but never says there's a lack of evidence against any view. Had the argument sounded like this, this answer would be correct: I recommend the shoe factory be the shelter site. Some council members asserts that the courthouse would be better, but they have provided no reasons why the shoe factory shouldn't be the site. Thus, the shoe factory should be the site.

    28% picked this

  2. Correct

    accepting a claim simply because

    Why this is right

    Does the author accept a claim? Sure, the author accepts his conclusion, the claim that "the shoe factory would be a better site". Is the evidence that an opposing claim has not been adequately defended? Yes, "the courthouse would be better" is an opposing claim, and it has not been adequately defended (supporters have provided no evidence of this).

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

    71% picked this

  3. attacking the proponents of the

    Wrong Flaw

    This describes the famous flaw of Ad Hominem. The author addressed the proponents' argument, citing their lack of evidence. He didn't attack them as people.

    0% picked this

  4. attempting to persuade its audience

    Wrong Flaw

    This refers to the famous flaw of Inappropriate Appeal (to Emotion). There was no appear to fear here.

    0% picked this

  5. attacking an argument that is

    Wrong Flaw

    This refers to the semi-famous flaw called Straw Man. The council members had the assertion that "courthouse would be better", and that's what the author attacked.

    0% 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