Legislator: My staff conducted

Answer choices

1. A

   Out Of Scope3% picked this

   fails to establish that the opinions of the legislator’s constituents are representative of the opinions of the country’s

   Out Of Scope: country as a whole Since the conclusion is only about the constituents, we only care about the constituents. It doesn't matter whether they are or aren't representative of any other group.

   3%
2. B

   Correct76% picked this

   fails to consider whether the legislator’s constituents consider the current corporate income tax

   Why this is right

   This points out a huge missing assumption: is the corporate income tax considered a "high" tax? The author is trying to use the survey results to argue that "People do not favor [the corporate income tax, as is]. Thus, they will support my lowering of it." That hinges on whether the corporate income tax is considered a "high tax". If we say "no, they don't consider the current corporate tax rate to be high", that would crush this argument.

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

   76%
3. C

   Doesn't Match15% picked this

   confuses an absence of evidence that the legislator’s constituents oppose a bill with the existence of evidence that the

   This is describing the famous flaw of Unproven vs Proven False. Had the argument committed this flaw, it would have sounded like, "Since there's no strong evidence that my constituents oppose this bill, they must support it". But the author didn't use a lack of counterevidence as her premise. She used a poll that says that her constituents don't favor high taxes.

   15%
4. D

   Doesn't Match1% picked this

   draws a conclusion that merely restates a claim presented in support

   This is describing the famous flaw of Circular Reasoning. Had the argument committed this flaw, it would have sounded like, "My constituents clearly support my bill, since my bill is the sort of thing that voters in my area endorse." If the conclusion had merely restated the premise, then the conclusion would have been about the poll, instead of being about the bill.

   1%
5. E

   Backwards4% picked this

   treats a result that proves that the public supports a bill as a result that is merely consistent with

   The author treats a result that is merely consistent with public support as though it proves that the public supports it. An LSAT author treats her evidence as though it illustrates her conclusion.

   4%