Logical Reasoning

PT143 · S1 · Q18 Police captain: The chief of police

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

Police captain: The chief of police has indicated that gifts of cash or objects valued at more than $100 count as graft.

Conclusion

The recent accusation of graft in my precinct are unfounded (i.e. there's no good reason to think that there's been any graft in my precinct).

Evidence

Gifts of cash or → graft objects > $100

No officer in my precinct has ever taken a gift of cash or an object worth more than $100.

Evaluate

At first this argument seems pretty compelling. The captain knows with certainty that none of her officers have ever taken the graft-y gifts described in the first sentence.

So we mobilize into Anti-Conclusion mode:

How can we accept that [no officer in this precinct has ever taken such gifts], but still argue that [there has been graft in this precinct]?

The first loophole I thought of was,

But then we might notice that the definition of graft in the first sentence is not exhaustive. The chief has indicated that X or Y count as graft. But no one ever said those are the only two things that count as graft.

Maybe accepting an invitation to sit courtside at a Lakers game is also graft. That's not cash, and that's not an object. But it's definitely a bribe-y type of favor.

The argument has made a Necessary vs. Sufficient move.

We go from thinking in a Sufficient way, if you do X or Y, you've committed graft

to thinking in a Necessary way, as long as you avoid X and Y, no graft

Goal

Look for an answer either making the "what if other things also count as graft" objection or the objection.

18.

The reasoning in the police captain's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument

  1. bases a rebuttal of accusations

    Contradicted: limited sample

    The author says she knows with certainty that "no officer in her precinct" has taken these gifts. That's not a sample of officers. That's the entire set of officers.

    15% picked this

  2. Correct

    fails to consider that there

    Why this is right

    Because this begins with fails to consider, we ask ourselves, "would it weaken this argument if there are other instances of graft besides the two kinds indicated by the chief"? Sure! The captain only ruled out the two types of graft mentioned by the chief, but until she rules out other types of graft in her precinct, she hasn't convinced us the recent accusations are unfounded. This is getting at the Necessary vs. Sufficient flaw. The chief never said that "only these two things count as graft", just "if you do either of these two things, it counts as graft". A similarly flawed argument might say: Sharon has indicated that limousines and helicopters take people from Los Angeles to Las Vegas. However, I know with certainty that none of my friends in Los Angeles have ever taken such modes of transport, so the recent accusations that some of my LA friends were in Vegas are unfounded.

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

    76% picked this

  3. bases a claim about the

    Wrong Flaw: not Ad Hominem

    The captain's conclusion is about the actions of individuals (none of the officers at my precinct have committed the action of graft). Is the captain's evidence appealing to the character of the officers? No. It's just saying that the captain knows with certainty that none of the officers have ever accepted cash or objects worth more than $100.

    4% picked this

  4. takes for granted that if

    Out of Scope: corruption

    When we see a flaw answer structured like takes for granted that if X, so is Y then X would need to match the evidence, and Y the conclusion. Here, X = the accusations of graft are unfounded Does that match the evidence? Heck, no. That's the conclusion. We could stop reading there. If we continue reading, it's accusing the conclusion of being a claim about corruption, which was never even mentioned in the argument.

    3% picked this

  5. relies on a premise that

    Wrong Flaw: not Self-Contradiction

    The premise is "I know with certainty that no officer in my precinct has taken such gifts". According to this answer choice, the conclusion is "I'm not really sure whether any officer in my precinct has taken such gifts", which clearly the conclusion does not say.

    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