Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT134 S3 Q11 Explanation

Sigerson argues that the city

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

TopicsFlaw

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Free to start

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Stimulus

Sigerson argues that the city should adopt ethical guidelines that preclude its politicians from accepting campaign contributions from companies that do business with the city. Sigerson's proposal is dishonest, however, because he throughout his career in city politics.

What this question is testing

Flaw

Your task

Describe the reasoning error the argument actually commits.

Common trap

Answers that name a real logical flaw the argument doesn't actually make.

Winning move

Articulate the gap in the reasoning yourself, then match it to the choice that describes that gap.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
11.

The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds

Answer choices

  1. No Conditional Logic6% picked this

    confuses a sufficient condition for adopting ethical guidelines for politicians with a necessary condition for

    This describes the famous Necessary vs. Sufficient flaw, but there is no conditional logic in this argument.

  2. Bad Premise Match16% picked this

    rejects a proposal on the grounds that an inadequate argument has been

    This describes the famous Unproven vs. Proven False flaw. Our author did kind of reject a proposal (calling it 'dishonest'), but it was on the grounds of Sigerson's past behavior, not on the grounds that his rationale was faulty.

  3. Out of Scope1% picked this

    fails to adequately address the possibility that other city politicians would

    It doesn't matter how other city politicians would react, if we're trying to judge whether or not Sigerson's proposal was dishonest.

  4. Opposite8% picked this

    rejects a proposal on the grounds that the person offering it is unfamiliar with the

    The author is rejecting this proposal on the grounds that the person is all too familiar with the issues it raises (i.e. a hypocrite, because he accepted the very contributions he's now coming out against)

  5. Correct70% picked this

    overlooks the fact that Sigerson's proposal would apply only to the future conduct

    Why this is right

    This is a weird correct answer, but it's making the objection of "Who cares if he did this in the past? Yes, it would be dishonest for him to condemn these contributions in the past, because he himself accepted such contributions. But if he's only talking about condemning these contributions going forward, then there's nothing hypocritical or dishonest about that." It speaks to the idea that you might do something in your past, learn from it, and then espouse advice that goes against it (any ex-con that comes to do an assembly at an elementary school is saying, "Don't make the mistakes that I made"). They aren't being dishonest is saying "you shouldn't commit crime". They want their advice to apply to the future conduct of those students.

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

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