Logical Reasoning

PT146 · S2 · Q4 The mayor has been accused

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

The mayor has been accused of taking a bribe based on the fact that a consultant that does business with the city paid for improvements to the mayor's vacation house.

Opposing Evidence

A consultant that does business with the city paid for improvements to the mayor's vacation house.

Opposing Conclusion (Accusation)

The mayor took a bribe.

Mayor's Evidence

He (the mayor) paid every bill for those improvements that was presented to him.

Mayor's Conclusion

He did not take a bribe.

Evaluate

We're told that the mayor has been accused of taking a bribe, and then given a statement that the mayor makes "in his own defense." We can infer that the mayor is denying the accusation that he took a bribe.

The mayor is denying this by stating that he paid every bill "that was presented to him." Okay... what if some bills were never presented to the mayor because the consultant paid those bills?

If the mayor knew the consultant was doing that, the mayors defense is weakened. The consultant would potentially be bribing the mayor with improvements to the vacation house instead of giving the mayor money directly.

Goal

A correct answer might indicate that this was the situation: the mayor was aware that some bills were never presented to him and were instead paid by the consultant.

4.

Which one of the following, if true, most undermines the mayor's defense?

  1. Authorities are investigating the consultant

    Out of Scope Ad Hominem

    This doesn't impact the mayor's argument. We don't know if something that happened in a different city is relevant at all to the mayor's situation. At best, this is attacking the consultant's character, but doesn't actually tell us anything about the situation involving the mayor.

    2% picked this

  2. Correct

    The mayor was aware that

    Why this is right

    Sure, the mayor paid every bill that was presented to him. But if he knew that some bills were never presented to him, and were being given to the consultant instead, that weakens his defense against the bribery accusation.

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

    85% picked this

  3. The building contractor in charge

    Out of Scope

    Without more information, there is no way of knowing how the previous work done by the contractor is related to the work this contractor did at the mayor's house and who paid for it.

    1% picked this

  4. The improvements to the mayor's

    Out of Scope

    All this really tells us is that the improvements to the mayor's house were expensive. It doesn't even mean that the expenses were unjustified. It has no clear relationship to the mayor's defense.

    1% picked this

  5. The amount of money that

    Irrelevant Comparison

    This doesn't actually tell us anything about the possibility that the consultant was bribing the mayor. It's entirely possible that the consultant did a large amount of work for the city, was paid appropriately for it, and this amount that the consultant legitimately earned was greater than the cost of improvements to the mayor's house. So what? This doesn't show any relationship between the consultant's fees and the cost of improvements to the house.

    10% 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