Logical Reasoning

PT140 · S1 · Q18 Mayor: A huge protest (copy)

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

Mayor: A huge protest against plans to build a chemical plant in this town was held yesterday.

Conclusion

This worry can be dismissed. rephrase: We can ignore the concern that the chemical plant could cause health problems.

Evidence

Most of the people who showed up to protest this plant were only there because they were paid to show up by people who don't want the factory to be built for property-value reasons.

Evaluate

Whenever we're doing a Flaw question and we see the author rebutting someone's claim, we want to immediately become suspicious that we might be seeing Ad Hominem or Unproven vs. Proven False (two of the ten famous flaws).

With Ad Hominem, we dismiss someone's point of view because they are a biased source ( they have some vested interest in matter) or because they have conflicting past behavior.

With Unproven vs. Proven False, we describe how someone's effort to prove X failed (through lack of evidence or flawed argument) and then we illicitly conclude that X is therefore false.

So what about this argument? If some people at a protest say , are we allowed to dismiss it simply by saying,

No. We're not allowed to conclude that what the protesters are saying is factually wrong just because they have a biased reason for saying it. We have to investigate the merits of the position itself -- is there any evidence that Snickers does have a chemical that is linked to cancer? Do we have any evidence for arguing that Snickers does not have any carcinogen in it?

Goal

Let's look for an answer that is objecting that the author is too harsh is dismissing the concerns of the protesters. Even if they were paid to be there, there may be some legitimacy to their claims. We should address the content of their argument rather than dismiss it because of the source of who's saying it.

Or we should responsibly conclude that these protesters are not strong evidence that the factory could cause health problems, but we should otherwise stay agnostic about whether the factory really could cause health problems, unless we're producing evidence of our own.

18.

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

  1. The argument mischaracterizes an opposing

    Not Straw Man

    This answer refers to a somewhat famous flaw (not top 15) called Straw Man, in which you turn your opponent's position into an unfair version of what was actually said. If someone said, "I think we should raise the minimum wage to $15" and her opponent responded, "Well, I don't think people should get rich for flipping burgers", that would be a straw man position he is arguing against. Here, since the original concern was that "the factory could cause health problems", a straw man would sound something like, "But we can dismiss the concern that everyone who lives near the factory or works there will die of cancer". This argument didn't misrepresent the opponent's position. They just failed to address it all, dismissing their right to have a position based on the fact that someone paid them to be there.

    5% picked this

  2. The argument attempts to persuade

    Not Inappropriate Appeal Opposite, if anything

    This answer refers to one of the ten famous flaws called Inappropriate Appeal, in which the author's argument leans on our sympathies/fears or leans on the opinion of someone who isn't established to be a qualified expert. The evidence here has nothing to do with playing up fears. This author is trying to tamp down fears by saying that the concerns are only being raised disingenuously by people who object to the construction for other reasons.

    2% picked this

  3. Correct

    The argument rejects a claim

    Why this is right

    When Flaw answers describe two part reasoning moves, we can try to match up each part with the Evidence or Conclusion. The author [does something in their conclusion] because of [something in their evidence]. Was the conclusion rejecting a claim? Definitely, "This worry can be dismissed". Was the evidence talking about the motivation that some people had for making the claim? Yes, the evidence says that "most of the protesters were there only because they were paid to show up". If an answer is descriptively true, we then ask ourselves, "Okay, this is true about the argument. Is it a criticism of the logic?" Yes! You're not allowed to reject a claim because of the motives of the person who said it. Logically, you evaluate whether the claim is true or false by considering the evidence for or against it, which our author never did.

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

    88% picked this

  4. The argument generalizes on the

    Not Sampling

    This answer refers to one of the ten famous flaws called Sampling, in which we worry about the sample that an argument is based on because it's either too small in size (i.e. like just a handful of data points) or because the sample seems biased, dishonest, or self-selecting. This answer choice is specifically referring to a Sampling flaw in which there are a few data points but the paragraph or our common sense has given us some reason to think that these data points aren't likely to be typical of whatever group the author is talking about. This conclusion is not a generalization at all, so we can immediately ditch this answer when we try to match up that half of the answer. The conclusion is a specific claim that "THIS worry can be dismissed".

    4% picked this

  5. The argument mistakes a claim

    Not Possible vs. Certain

    This answer describes one of the semi-famous flaws (not top 10) known as Possible vs. Certain. When Flaw answer choices say the author "mistakes X for Y" or "confuses X with Y", it will only be correct if the evidence talked about one of those while the conclusion talked about (or acted like we knew) the other one. Is there any claim here about a result being possible? Sure, there's a claim (from the protesters) that the result of the factory's operation could be health problems. Does the author act like we're saying "the factory's operation will inevitability bring health problems"? No. And she's not accusing the protesters of thinking that way either, so there's no aspect of this argument that is trading between possible and certain.

    2% 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