Logical Reasoning

PT149 · S4 · Q11 A group of citizens opposes developing

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

A group of citizens opposes developing a nearby abandoned railroad grade into a hiking trail.

Conclusion

Development of the trail should proceed

Evidence

Some people oppose it out of fear that the trails will get littered with food wrappers and other trash, but most trail users will be responsible hikers with great concern for the environment.

Evaluation

This is vulnerable to several objections: - he's assuming that "hikers with great concern for the environment" don't litter. - he's arguing that , but what about the up to 49% that aren't responsible hikers? Couldn't that still be a significant amount of litter? - even if we reject the argument that the opposition was making, that doesn't mean we've offered positive evidence in favor of the conclusion.

One of the famous flaws, Unproven vs. Proven False, is this idea that . X should just still be in doubt.

Just because an argument that "we shouldn't make these trails" failed doesn't mean that we should conclude that "we should make these trails".

Goal

Look for the Unproven vs. Proven False answer choice, or an answer that makes the objection that "responsible hikers still litter" or that

11.

The argument above is flawed in that it

  1. Correct

    bases its conclusion mainly on

    Why this is right

    This is a novel phrasing, but this is getting at the Unproven vs. Proven False move. "Why should we develop this trail? Because one argument against it, that it will lead to lots of litter, is not compelling.

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

    38% picked this

  2. illicitly infers that because each

    Bad Evidence / Conclusion Match

    Does the conclusion say that "each member of a set has a certain property"? No, it says that we should develop the trail. This answer refers to the famous flaw Part vs. Whole, which we can't match up here at all. That flaw recycles a trait. e.g.: "Because the whole trail is worth building, each rest stop along the trail is worth building"

    15% picked this

  3. illicitly assumes as one of

    Not Circular

    When we hear that "the conclusion restates a premise" or that the author "assumes the conclusion", those are keywords that mean Circular Reasoning.

    8% picked this

  4. illicitly infers that an attribute

    Bad Evidence / Conclusion Match

    The author is thinking that an attribute of a majority of the users (most users will be responsible people who care for environment) will characterize all users of the trail. Our author thinks, "since most of the users won't litter, there won't be an overall problem with litter". This answer says that the argument is "since some users won't litter, most won't litter."

    38% picked this

  5. attacks the citizens in the

    Not Ad Hominem

    The author addresses their objection about littering by assuaging them that most users are responsible hikers who presumably wouldn't dream of littering. This answer choice describes the famous flaw Ad Hominem, in which we dismiss a point of view because of the speaker's ulterior motive or conflicting behavior/statements.

    1% 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