Logical Reasoning

PT158 · S2 · Q2 Council president: Councilmember Smith has

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

Council president: Councilmember Smith has proposed a new city ordinance prohibiting the use of the "bait-and-switch" sales tactic.

Conclusion (Clearly)

Smith's proposed ordinance does not even merit consideration.

Evidence

He's currently proposing a new city ordinance prohibiting "bait-and-switch", but four years ago he owned an appliance store that was famous for its use of bait-and-switch.

Evaluate

Whenever we're doing Flaw and we see a Rebuttal style argument, we consider the 2 of the 10 Famous Flaws that deal with rebuttals:

Ad Hominem - This refers to when an author dismisses an argument because the source of the argument has a biased interest or conflicting past behavior.

Unproven vs. Proven False - This refers to when an author argues that .

This looks to be an example of Ad Hominem. The author isn't saying that Smith's claim is false, so it couldn't be Unproven vs. Proven False. She's just dismissing his view, saying "it doesn't even merit consideration".

And why? Because of Smith's conflicting past behavior.

We should never reject someone's suggestion that we do Y just because that person used to say/do the opposite of Y. People and circumstances can change. Maybe there was someone who was really into cryptocurrency when it first came out but now is against it because of how bad its energy demands are for the environment. We can't say,

Goal

Look for an answer describing this famous flaw; often it sounds like .

Otherwise, it might be a more specific answer that says,

2.

The council president's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the president

  1. Correct

    dismisses the proposed ordinance because

    Why this is right

    This describes an Ad Hominem flaw. Whether we're dismissing a view because the source is biased, or a hypocrite, or a poopy pants, we're failing to engage with the actual content of the view. If our author wants to shoot down the idea of an ordinance against "bait and switch" sales tactics, she needs to evaluate the merits of that proposal, regardless of who the proponents of the idea are.

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

    81% picked this

  2. takes a single fact that

    Bad Conclusion Match

    Since the answer is structured, takes X as enough to show that Y we would want X to match the evidence and Y to match the author's thinking en route to the conclusion. Was there any premise that showed a single fact that is incompatible with a claim? Nope. The evidence is simply that Smith's store used to use the B&S tactic. That doesn't contradict any other claim we heard about. The second half also doesn't work, because the conclusion doesn't try to show that a claim is false. The conclusion is saying "we don't need to consider Smith's idea", but that's not the same as "Smith's idea is false". Finally, there's nothing objectionable about using a single incompatible fact to reject a claim. A single counterexample can legitimately refute a universal claim. So even if this answer were true, it wouldn't be something we'd be mad at.

    15% picked this

  3. fails to make a needed

    Not Our Objection

    When we complain that an author failed to distinguish two things, we're saying "They equated/conflated the two. They went from talking about one to talking about the other as though they're the same thing." Bait and switch is presumably a deceptive sales tactic (although that would come from our common sense, not from anything the stimulus said), but we never switched to then talking about legitimate modes of increasing sales.

    2% picked this

  4. draws a conclusion that simply

    Not Circular

    Circular reasoning occurs when the conclusion simply restates one of its own premises — when the argument assumes what it is trying to prove. For this to apply, the president's conclusion (the ordinance does not merit consideration) would need to be the same as one of the premises. But the premise is that Smith used bait-and-switch four years ago, and the conclusion is that his ordinance should be dismissed. These are different claims.

    1% picked this

  5. generalizes from a limited number

    Not Sampling

    This describes a Sampling flaw, which only applies when the conclusion is saying that "what was true of this set of data points will be true of this larger set of data points". The conclusion of this argument is not making a generalization at all (i.e. a claim that applies to multiple cases). It's making a specific claim that Smith's proposed ordinance doesn't merit consideration.

    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