Logical Reasoning

PT143 · S1 · Q7 Political advertisement: Sherwood campaigns

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

Political advertisement: Sherwood campaigns as an opponent of higher taxes.

Conclusion (implicit)

In anybody really fooled by Sherwood's attempt to campaign as an opponent of higher taxes?

rephrase: Sherwood doesn't oppose higher taxes

Evidence

For the last 10 years, Sherwood served on the city council, and the city council consistently increased taxes year after year.

Evaluate

Given that ... Sherwood served on the city council for 10 years, during which the city council repeatedly increased taxes,

How could we still argue that ... Sherwood sincerely opposes higher taxes?

There are several rebuttals we might make:

- Maybe Sherwood approved of the past tax increases, but now something has changed that makes Sherwood oppose higher taxes (perhaps taxes have been raised high enough that Sherwood is happy with the current tax rate and opposes further increases / or maybe the economic climate has changed so Sherwood doesn't think that raising taxes would be a good choice in this economy)

- Maybe Sherwood always opposed tax increases, but she was outvoted on the city council, so the city council kept raising taxes despite her protests.

Since the argument is essentially arguing, , we could also call this an example of the famous Part vs. Whole flaw.

Goal

Look for an answer describing the Whole to Part move the author committed, or an answer reconciling the ideas that Sherwood could sincerely oppose higher taxes despite having been on a city council that increased taxes.

7.

The argument in the political advertisement is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it

  1. bases a crucial generalization on

    Not Sampling

    This refers to one of the 10 Famous Flaws, Sampling, in which a general conclusion is based on a limited sample, which we have reason to worry is too small, self-selecting, or unrepresentative in some way. Any time an answer says, bases X on Y then X should match the conclusion and Y should match the evidence. Was the conclusion "a crucial generalization"? Nope, it's a specific idea about Sherwood ("Sherwood doesn't really oppose higher taxes").

    1% picked this

  2. fails to consider the possibility

    Not an Objection

    Since this answer begins with fails to consider / ignores the possibility, we can ask ourselves whether the idea that follows is an objection. Can we say, "hey, author -- even though Sherwood served on a city council that continually raised taxes, she truly does oppose higher taxes. After all, it's possible for something to be unavoidable but also be undesirable." No, that made no sense whatsoever. This answer has nothing to do with the argument. We didn't talk about anything "unavoidable". This answer is disagreeing with an argument that sounds more like this: "Young children sometimes fear puberty. But puberty is unavoidable. Thus puberty will be fine." We could object to that argument that "even though something is unavoidable it might nonetheless be undesirable".

    4% picked this

  3. mistakes something that is sufficient

    Not Necessary vs. Sufficient

    This refers to the most common of the 10 Famous Flaws, Necessary vs. Sufficient, in which the author presents a conditional logic premise and then applies it in an illegal backwards or reversed way to get to her conclusion. There's no conditional logic premise here, so this can't be the flaw.

    4% picked this

  4. makes a personal attack on

    Not Ad Hominem

    This refers to one of the 10 Famous Flaws, Ad Hominem, in which an author dismisses an argument because the source of the argument has a biased interest or some conflicting past behavior. This argument doesn't have a "personal attack" for evidence. It points to a candidate's history on city council.

    5% picked this

  5. Correct

    takes for granted that a

    Why this is right

    This refers to one of the 10 Famous Flaws, Whole to Part, in which an author assumes that a trait that belongs to a group therefore also applies to each part of the group. This author established that a characteristic, "supports higher taxes", that applied to a group as a whole (the city council), is shared by an individual member of that group (Sherwood). We were saying, "Just because the city council consistently increased taxes doesn't necessarily mean that every single person on the council (including Sherwood) was in favor of raising those taxes. Thus, maybe Sherwood has been steadfastly against higher taxes this whole time." This answer is an abstract way of addressing that flaw.

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

    87% 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