Logical Reasoning

PT152 · S4 · Q16 Editorial: The main contention of Kramer’s book

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

Editorial: The main contention of Kramer’s book is that coal companies are to blame for our region’s economic difficulties.

Conclusion (thus)

The book’s main contention is simply false. rephrase: Coal companies are not to blame for our region’s economic difficulties.

Evidence

Kramer based this contention on allegations that the companies made no significant investments in other industries in our region, but the companies did make significant investments (albeit sometimes indirectly) in road building and manufacturing in the region.

Evaluate

Whenever we’re doing Flaw and the argument is a Rebuttal we want to immediately look out for the two rebuttal flaws from the 10 famous flaws:

1. Ad Hominem, in which the author dismisses someone’s point of view because the person has a biased interest in the matter or because they have conflicting past behavior.

2. Unproven vs. Proven False, in which the author says that

This argument seems to be committing #2, since the conclusion is saying “this view is false”. Kramer based his conclusion on idea Y, and the author tells us that idea Y is false.

Just because we base a conclusion on a wrong idea doesn’t mean that the conclusion is wrong. In the old days, people concluded that humans were special based on the belief that Earth was the center of the universe. Now that we know that Earth is not the center of the universe, does that prove that humans aren’t special? Of course not. Maybe we are special, but just for a different reason (like maybe we’re the most intelligent species so far).

Goal

Let’s look for an answer calling out the Unproven vs. Proven False flaw. Just because the evidence of Kramer’s argument turns out to be false doesn’t prove that Kramer’s conclusion is false.

16.

The reasoning in the editorial's argument is flawed in that this argument

concludes that one party is
Bad Evidence Match
Since this answer describes a 2-part move, concludes X on the grounds that Y, we should try to match X up with the conclusion and Y up with the evidence. The conclusion is indeed saying that one party (coal companies) are not to blame for a particular outcome (region’s economic difficulties). But the evidence didn’t say that some other party is to blame for the region’s economic difficulties. The evidence just said that Kramer’s premise was false.
1% picked this
concludes that a person’s statement
Bad Evidence Match
Since this answer describes a 2-part move, concludes that X merely on the grounds that Y, we should try to match X up with the conclusion and Y up with the evidence. The conclusion is indeed saying that a statement is false (Kramer’s main contention). But the evidence didn’t say that “If Kramer were right, this would impugn the reputation of the coal industry, which is an important industry”. The evidence said, “Kramer’s premise was false”.
2% picked this
rejects an argument merely on
Not Ad Hominem
This answer describes the famous Ad Hominem flaw. The author does reject an argument, but doesn’t do so because she thinks that Kramer has an ulterior motive for making it. She rejects his conclusion because the premise on which he based it is false.
10% picked this
takes a sufficient condition for
Not Necessary vs. Sufficient
This answer describes the #1 famous flaw Necessary vs. Sufficient, in which the argument presents a conditional rule as a premise and then tries to apply that rule in an illegal backwards or negated fashion. This argument did not have a conditional logic premise, so there’s no way this could be right.
18% picked this
Correct
concludes that a person’s statement
Why this is right
This describes the famous Unproven vs. Proven False flaw. The author did indeed conclude that someone’s statement is false (Thus, the main contention is simply false), and the evidence was indeed a description of the inadequate argument Kramer made to support his contention. He based his contention primarily on allegations that our author tells us are not true. Thus, Kramer’s support was inadequate to prove his conclusion. But of course that doesn’t prove that the conclusion itself is false.
Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
70% 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