Logical Reasoning

PT136 · S2 · Q21 The mayor was not telling

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

The mayor was not telling the truth when he said that the bridge renovation did not waste taxpayers' money.

Conclusion

The bridge renovation did waste taxpayers' money. (the mayor was lying when he said otherwise)

Evidence

He set up a commission to look into government waste, and it found out that the Southern Tier Project was super wasteful. The bridge renovation was part of that Project.

Evaluate

Given that the bridge renovation was part of the STP, and the STP was super wasteful, how could we still argue that the bridge renovation was not wasteful?

We'd have to say that the bridge renovation was one of the rare parts of the STP that wasn't wasteful. Maybe the bridge renovation was performed efficiently well within budget at a competitive rate, unlike other parts of the STP.

If we know our famous flaws, we'll see the giveaway language of Part vs. Whole: the bridge renovation was a part.

Goal

Look for an answer calling out the author's move from Whole (the Project was wasteful) to Part (the bridge renovation was wasteful).

21.

The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that the argument

  1. Correct

    infers that a part has

    Why this is right

    The author inferred (concluded) that a part of the STP (the bridge renovation) has a certain quality (wasteful) on the grounds that the whole (STP) had the quality (of being wasteful).

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

    81% picked this

  2. draws a general conclusion about

    Not "Sampling"

    The conclusion is specifically about the bridge renovation; it's not a general conclusion about government waste. Illicitly concluding something general on the basis of too small a sample is the famous Sampling flaw.

    13% picked this

  3. attacks the mayor's character rather

    Not "Ad Hominem"

    This author doesn't attack the mayor's character, she only says that he wasn't telling the truth. Dismissing a view based on the source's character, biased interest, or past behavior is the famous flaw called Ad Hominem.

    2% picked this

  4. puts forward evidence that presupposes

    Not "Circular Reasoning"

    Answers that say the conclusion restated the evidence or that the author presumed the truth of his conclusion are referring to the famous flaw Circular Reasoning. These answers are almost never right. The evidence for the wastefulness of the bridge renovation is that it was part of a larger project that was found by the mayor's commission to be egregiously wasteful. The author isn't assuming it was wasteful; the commission ascertained that.

    4% picked this

  5. rejects a position on the

    Not "Ad Hominem"

    This author doesn't address the mayor's motives and say that since he's biased we must reject this claim. The author cites genuine counterevidence in the form of the fact that the bridge renovation was part of an egregiously wasteful project. Dismissing a view based on the source's character, biased interest, or past behavior is the famous flaw called Ad Hominem.

    1% 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