Self-study
Conclusion All coffee drinkers in an office ought to contribute equally to the fund that pays for the office’s coffee, because, although some coffee drinkers would prefer to pay for their coffee by the cup, or in some other manner, Support it is better if everyone who drinks the office’s coffee provides the same amount of support to the fund.
Circular Reasoning
Circular reasoning (a.k.a. begging the question) shows up most often as a wrong answer choice in Flaw questions. This stimulus, though, gives us an excellent example of the flaw in action – the argument's premise and its conclusion essentially say the same thing:
We should all contribute equally because it would be better if everyone contributed equally.
Notice that they don't literally repeat the same words, but instead refer to the same concept using two different phrasings. That's a common pattern in arguments featuring circular reasoning – it helps to mask the underlying (lack of) structure.
10.
The reasoning in the argument ██ ████ ██████████ ██ █████████ ██ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ████████
a
It offers, in █████ ██ ███████ ███ ███ ███████████ █ ████ ███████████ ██ ████ ███████████
This is one of the ways the LSAT points to circular reasoning. Another popular one is "presupposes the truth of its conclusion."
Another lens on this flaw: if you try to imagine what kind of person could be convinced by this argument, the only people for whom this reasoning would work are people who already believe the conclusion.
b
It overlooks the ███████████ ████ ████ ██ ████ █████ ███████ █████████ ██████████ ██ ███ ███████████ ████ █████ ████ ███████████
(B) accuses the argument of an error in logical strength – drawing a "most" conclusion from a "some" premise. That's a different flaw, and not one that occurs here. (Where's the concept of "most"?)
c
It uses emotionally ███████ █████ ██ ████████████ ████████ ███ ████████ ██ ████████ ██ ███████
(C) accuses the argument of a misdirected response, a common flaw where speakers dodge the substance of an argument by focusing on other (irrelevant) factors. This stimulus lacks emotionally charged terms.
d
It applies a ██████ ████████ ███████ ███ █████ ██ ██████ ██ ██████ █████ ███ ███████ █████ ██████ █████ ███ ████████ ██ ███████ █████████
(D) accuses the argument of an internal contradiction – an inconsistency within its own stated views. This argument does judge by-the-cup payers wrong and equal-contributors right, but that's not a double standard – the standard is "equal contribution is better."
A double standard would be saying "everyone should contribute equally" and then saying "Barbara doesn't need to contribute as much as others."
e
It offers two ████████████ ████ ██ ███ ███████ ███ █████████████ █████████ ███ ████ ██████ █████ ████████████ ██ ███ ████ ████████ █████
(E) accuses the argument of a false dichotomy. This would match more closely if the argument said "we should all contribute equally because by-the-cup charging isn't feasible," ignoring other alternative structures.