Logical Reasoning

PT23 · S2 · Q23 An independent audit found no indication

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

An independent audit found no indication of tax avoidance on the part of the firm in the firm’s accounts; therefore, no such problem exists.

Conclusion (therefore)

No such problem exists. i.e. there is no tax avoidance happening on the part of the firm.

Evidence

An independent audit found no indication of it in the firm's accounts.

Evaluate

On the face of it, this argument doesn't sound too flawed. An independent auditor looked into a firm's accounts for evidence of tax avoidance and found none. Thus, it seems like this firm is good to go? Innocent of the charges?

Well, their claims of innocence are definitely strengthened by the fact that an independent auditor found no evidence of guilt, but they're not proven.

This is the famous Unproven vs. Proven False flaw. Just because there's no evidence that the firm did avoid taxes doesn't prove they didn't avoid taxes.

Goal

Let's look for an answer committing a similar Unproven vs. Proven False flaw.

23.

The questionable reasoning in the argument above is most closely paralleled by that in which one of the following?

  1. The plan for the introduction

    Different Flaw: Temporal

    This argument feels more like it's committing what people call the Temporal Flaw: assuming that what has been true before will continue to be true. Since it hasn't been modified so far, it won't be modified in the future. Here, our objection is, "Maybe something is importantly different between now and then." Our objection to the original was "just because there's no evidence for X doesn't mean we can say X doesn't exist."

    8% picked this

  2. The overall budget for the

    Different Flaw: Part vs. Whole

    This feels like it's committing a different flaw from the ten famous ones: Part vs. Whole. Since the overall budget has a certain trait (exceeded by large amount), a certain part of the budget has that trait (exceeded by large amount). If the conclusion and evidence were talking about "exceeded by a large percentage", this wouldn't be a flawed argument. But since it's talking about amount, we don't need to believe that any one project has greatly exceeded its budget. It's possible that all the projects have exceeded their budgets by a small amount. That could still add up to the overall budget being exceeded by a large amount. But this mathematical objection, "It's possible for the whole to be much larger if all the parts are just slightly larger" has no similarity to the original argument, which was more like, "It's possible that X is true, even though one search for X came up dry."

    1% picked this

  3. A compilation of the best

    Different Flaw: Causal Flaw

    This argument presents a Curious Fact (how come there are no essays on current events?) and then overconfidently concludes one possible causal explanation for that curious fact. That's the famous flaw we call Causal Flaw. We're looking for Unproven vs. Proven False.

    18% picked this

  4. A survey of schools in

    Different Flaw: Term Shift

    This argument moves from "all schools need building repair" to "the education being provided is substandard". It's not clear what building-repair-condition has to do with quality of education. But this is a flaw of irrelevance. The original flaw was about a lack of evidence proving that something didn't exist.

    4% picked this

  5. Correct

    An examination of the index

    Why this is right

    Like the original argument, this involved a search for a certain thing. Someone was searching for tax avoidance. Someone was searching for a famous critic's name. They didn't find tax avoidance in the firm's accounts. They didn't find the critic's name in the index. Thus, they concluded, this firm doesn't have any tax avoidance. Thus, they concluded, this book doesn't have the critic's name in it. In addition to feeling like Unproven vs. Proven False (since both arguments proceed from a lack of evidence for X to a conclusion that X doesn't happen), it feels like both argument somewhat have a Part vs. Whole vibe as well. Just because you didn't find tax evasion in the firm's accounts doesn't mean there isn't tax evasion in the firm overall. Just because you didn't find the critic's name in the book's index doesn't mean the critic's name isn't in the book overall.

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

    69% 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