Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Medium

PT136 S2 Q21 Explanation

The mayor was not telling

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

The mayor was not telling the truth when he said that the bridge renovation did not waste taxpayers' money. The very commission he set up to look into government waste reported that the Southern renovation was a part, was egregiously wasteful.

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
21.

The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that

Answer choices

  1. Correct80% picked this

    infers that a part has a certain quality merely on the grounds that the whole to which it

    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.

  2. Not "Sampling"13% picked this

    draws a general conclusion about government waste on the basis of a single instance

    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.

  3. Not "Ad Hominem"2% picked this

    attacks the mayor's character rather than assessing the strength of the evidence supporting

    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.

  4. Not "Circular Reasoning"4% picked this

    puts forward evidence that presupposes an important part of the claim that the argument

    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.

  5. Not "Ad Hominem"1% picked this

    rejects a position on the grounds that the motives of the person who has advanced the

    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.

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