Logical Reasoning

PT138 · S4 · Q10 Letter to the editor: Sites are needed for disposal

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

Letter to the editor: Sites are needed for disposal of contaminated dredge spoils from the local harbor.

Conclusion

The approach you suggest for disposing of nasty dredge spoils would damage commercial fishing operations.

Evidence

Over 20,000 people have signed petitions opposing your approach and preferring using sand-capped pits in another area.

Evaluation

Is this petition good evidence that commercial fishing operations would be damaged? Tough to say. Did the petition even mention commercial fishing operations? Were most of the 20,000 signatories aware of what effect this approach might have on commercial fishing operations?

All we know from the petition is that these people opposed this approach and favored another. But we don't know anything about why they opposed this approach, so this could be an Irrelevant Response to whether the approach hurts commercial fishing, and we have no idea whether these people knew anything about commercial fishing, so this could be an Inappropriate Appeal to people who might lack the knowledge or expertise to evaluate this situation.

Goal

Find an answer complaining about, .

10.

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

The argument distorts the editor's
Doesn't Distort View
We don't hear anything about the editor's view other than "your approach". It's hard to distort someone's view if you just say "your view". This answer refers to a famous flaw called Straw Man. It would feel more like Person A saying "I think we should install solar panels on the roof" and Person B saying, "Well, I'm not so sure we should be spending all the company's money on green initiatives".
4% picked this
The argument fails to establish
Out of Scope: "alternative approach"
The conclusion is only about whether this approach would or wouldn't damage commercial fishing operations. The author is under no burden to argue that the other approach is viable or even preferable.
19% picked this
The argument attempts to establish
Out of Scope: "self-interest"
We don't know anything about this writer so there's no way for us to say that this letter is in the writer's self-interest. Also, it's not inherently bad to make an argument out of self-interest. We don't have to be genuinely concerned with the truth to still say truthful things and argue in a logical manner.
3% picked this
Correct
The argument's conclusion is based
Why this is right
The conclusion is based on testimony: it's the testimony of 20,000 people. We have no idea who they are. They might be exiting a Whole Foods. Do they know anything about burying contaminated dredge spoils? Do they know anything about commercial fishing operations? This answer describes the Inappropriate Appeal to someone with dubious expertise on the matter.
Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
70% picked this
The argument takes for granted
Out of Scope: "3rd option"
We don't even care about the second option. The conclusion is only about whether or not the first option will damage commercial fishing operations. This answer describes the famous flaw of False Choice.
3% 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