PT143 · S1 · Q12 Commentator: The Duke of Acredia

When a Flaw answer choice begins with fails to consider / ignores the possibility then we can examine the idea that follows by asking ourselves if it sounds like an objection. If we told this author "necessary conditions are likely to change over time", could that hurt her argument? Probably not. A) Even if the set of necessary conditions changes, the necessary condition about having concern for welfare of the people might always remain. B) The conclusion is in the present tense, so the author is technically only claiming something about what is presently necessary.

This is super close to being fine. When an answer says stuff like, infers X from the fact that Y concludes, on the basis of Y, that X we should ask ourselves whether the parts of the answer match the corresponding parts of the argument. Did the author infer the necessity of a certain condition for success? Yes, the conclusion is saying that "concern for welfare of people" is a necessary condition for success. Does the evidence say that "the absence of a concern for welfare of people has always led to failure"? No, not quite. It says that "failure has always been accompanied by the absence of a concern for welfare of the people". There are no causal verbs in the evidence. The governments that have fallen have always been during the rule of one who disregarded public welfare. We were never told that the failure was caused by disregard for public welfare. Furthermore, we're only told about what has always been true when failure occurred. This answer is acting like we've been about what has always been true when concern for public welfare was lacking (we haven't).

First of all, the argument isn't really leaning on an appeal to any source. The mentions of the Duke of Acredia are really tangential to the logic of the argument. They just provide some conversational ornaments but the argument would be the same if we removed all mentions of the Duke. Secondly, even if the author were appealing to the Duke as a source of evidence, there isn't anything in this paragraph that makes him seem likely to be biased or unreliable. It's fine to say, "an author is relying heavily on a source that may be biased or unreliable" without anything to back that up. But we're not allowed to say a source is probably biased or unreliable unless we can back that up with something.

Too Strong: completely objective Out of Scope: character When Flaw answer choices begin with takes for granted / presumes / fails to establish, we can ask ourselves if the idea that follows was something that needed to be assumed. Did this author need to assume that the character of past rulers can be assessed with complete objectivity? No, not quite. She only needed to assume that the extent to which past rulers had concern for the welfare of the people can be assessed with accuracy. This is also referring to the premise, which we should be accepting for the sake of argument. LSAT wouldn't want us to be objecting to this argument by saying, "Nuh-uh ... those past rulers didn't viciously disregard people's needs".