Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT149 S4 Q11 ExplanationA group of citizens opposes developing

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

TopicsFlaw

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Free to start

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Stimulus

A group of citizens opposes developing a nearby abandoned railroad grade into a hiking trail. Its members argue that trail users will likely litter the area with food wrappers and other debris. But this objection is groundless. Most trail users will be the environment. Consequently, development of the trail should proceed.

What this question is testing

Flaw

Your task

Describe the reasoning error the argument actually commits.

Common trap

Answers that name a real logical flaw the argument doesn't actually make.

Winning move

Articulate the gap in the reasoning yourself, then match it to the choice that describes that gap.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
11.

The argument above is flawed in

Answer choices, explained

  1. Correct38% picked this

    bases its conclusion mainly on a claim that an opposing argument

    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.

  2. Bad Evidence / Conclusion Match15% picked this

    illicitly infers that because each member of a set has a certain property that set

    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"

  3. Not Circular8% picked this

    illicitly assumes as one of its premises the contention it purports

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

  4. Bad Evidence / Conclusion Match37% picked this

    illicitly infers that an attribute of a few users of the proposed trail will characterize a majority of

    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."

  5. Not Ad Hominem1% picked this

    attacks the citizens in the group rather than their objection to

    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.

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