Letter to the editor: You have

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Conclusion Match1% picked this

   draws a conclusion about what ought to be the case from premises that are entirely about

   Is the conclusion about what ought to be the case? Nope, it's just saying "it is the case that philanthropists want no such thing". This is testing a common distinction at play in LSAT (though not a famous flaw): normative language (should / ought / good / bad) vs. descriptive language (is / are / will / was)

   1%
2. B

   Correct90% picked this

   takes the condition of one member of a category to be representative of the

   Why this is right

   This describes one version of the famous Sampling Flaw -- the sample is too small (only one data point) to be treated as though it's representative of the overall big picture. Does the author talk about "one member of a category"? Sure, Byworks Corp is one member of the category "private business". What is their condition? They've been posting huge losses for years. Is our author taking that to be representative of the category in general? Is she acting like "private business" posts losses year after year? Yeah, she is. She's saying "Philanthropists aren't trying to be as efficient as private business. Private business is massively inefficient. After all, just look at Byworks, which is very inefficient."

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

   90%
3. C

   Wrong Flaw4% picked this

   rejects a claim by attacking the proponent of the claim rather than addressing

   This describes the famous Ad Hominem flaw, in which an author dismisses a point of view because the source of the view has some biased/vested interest in the matter or because the source has some conflicting past behavior. This argument isn't attacking the source. The premise isn't saying "We shouldn't believe you — you would benefit if it were true that philanthropists want to make themselves like private business" or "we shouldn't believe you — you used to say that philanthropists would never want to be like private businesses".

   4%
4. D

   Wrong Flaw2% picked this

   concludes that a claim must be false because of the mere absence of evidence

   This describes the famous Unproven vs. Proven False flaw, in which an author assumes that because someone's attempt to prove X failed, that must mean that X is false. Does the argument conclude a claim is false? Yes. It concludes that the claim "Philanthropists want to make nonprofits as efficient as private businesses" is false. Does our author's argument discuss a failed attempt to prove that claim true? No. Our author introduces her own evidence that philanthropists wouldn't want to model themselves after private business by citing her own example of an inefficient private business. When this flaw is occurring, the author's evidence sounds like it's specifically describing how the opponent's argument / experiment failed.

   2%
5. E

   Bad Conclusion/Premise Match2% picked this

   concludes that a phenomenon will have a certain property merely because the phenomenon's cause

   Does the conclusion say that "a phenomenon will have a certain property"? Nope. It just says that "a certain category of entities is not pursuing a certain goal" (philanthropists are not trying to model their efficiency off that of private business). Even if we were to call "philanthropists" a phenomenon, then this answer choice would be saying that the Evidence discussed the cause of that phenomenon. The cause of philanthropists? Nothing causes people. They're things, not actions that can be caused.

   2%