Logical Reasoning

PT134 · S3 · Q14 Newspaper subscriber: Arnot's editorial

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

Newspaper subscriber: Arnot's editorial argues that by making certain fundamental changes in government we would virtually eliminate our most vexing social ills.

Conclusion

Making certain changes in government would not virtually eliminate our most vexing social ills.

Evidence

The argument Arnot makes for this claim depends on a dubious assumption, that the government can be trusted to act in the interest of the public.

Evaluate

It's easy to get sucked into the content of this conversation and start thinking,

But all LSAT wants us to notice is that the author has concluded that a claim is false because the argument made for it contained a dubious (potentially untrue) assumption.

I could argue

You might respond,

But you're not allowed to now conclude, with certainty, The fact that you poked a hole in my argument doesn't mean that you've proven the opposite.

Goal

Look for an answer describing the famous Unproven vs. Proven False flaw.

14.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses a flaw in the argument's reasoning?

  1. Correct

    it repudiates a claim merely

    Why this is right

    Does it repudiate a claim? Yes, "clearly this conclusion is false. Is the only premise (merely on the grounds) that an inadequate argument has been made? Yes, the only premise that the argument for that claim rested on a dubious assumption.

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

    54% picked this

  2. it treats a change that

    Not "Necessary vs. Sufficient"

    This refers to the famous Necessary vs. Sufficient flaw, which is what we call it when an author messes up conditional logic. But there was no conditional logic here. There was no condition identified that is required for eliminating most of our worst social ills.

    4% picked this

  3. it fails to consider that,

    Backwards Ingredients

    Our author failed to consider that, even if an argument's assumptions are false (or dubious), the conclusion they are used to justify may nonetheless be true.

    13% picked this

  4. it distorts the opponent's argument

    Not "Straw Man"

    We can't point to anywhere where our author distorts the opponent's argument. This answer refers to a flaw called Straw Man. If the author presented Arnot's idea that "government could be changed in a way that would virtually eliminate our social problems" and then the author said "but I'm not so sure that a revolution would solve our social problems, we could accuse the author of doing what this answer choice describes. Arnot was calling for change, not revolution, so the author would be distorting Arnot's argument by responding that way.

    21% picked this

  5. it uses the key term

    Not "Equivocation"

    The term government is used consistently. To pick an answer claiming the author committed the famous Equivocation flaw, you'd need to be able to paraphrase each usage of government in two completely different ways. But in both cases here, we would paraphrase the usage as something like "the officials and systems in charge of running the country".

    7% 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