PT86.S1.Q25 - Stallworth claims that she supported the proposal

buckmartin

This question asks us to find an answer choice that matches the flaw in the stimulus.

The form of the argument in the stimulus and the form of the argument in the correct answer choice are not at all identical, and this is the difficulty of this question.

The argument in the stimulus says:
Stallworth claimed that [A]
A+B --> C
/C
Therefore, /B

A = Stallworth supported the proposal
A+B = Henning also supported the proposal (the "also" was referencing Stallworth's support)
C = proposal received government approval

Answer choice A says:
TV news claimed that [A and B]
A --> /B
Therefore, /B

A = the traffic accident occurred on Aylmer Street
B = Morgan witnessed the accident from his kitchen window

The TV news made two claims (claim A and claimB), then a not both rule (A --> /B) is stated. Since both A and B can't be true at the same time the author concludes that B must not have happened. However, the author is ignoring the possibility that it was A that didn't happen.

Answer choice B says:
City government claimed that [A]
A private institute claimed that [B]
Therefore, the city government is to blame for A

A = 15% of city residents are behind on their property taxes
B = property taxes in the city are higher than average

The flaw here is that the author assumes B caused A, rather than a number of alternative possibilities such as high unemployment or people being distracted by studying for the LSAT every day and forgetting to pay their property taxes. The other unwarranted assumption is that the city government sets the taxes. Maybe the citizens vote to determine the tax rate. It's even possible that the county determines the property tax rate in this city. It would not be logical to blame the city government for something they have no control over.

Answer choice C says:
According to Kapoor [A]
According to Galindo [B]
Therefore, if B --> /A
A = haz waste site does not pose danger to the community
B = haz waste site is on an unsuitable tract of land

Two different ideas (danger and suitability) are discussed but assumed to be the same idea. We don't know why Galindo thinks the land is unsuitable. Maybe it's because this land is really rocky and it's expensive to dig holes in the ground for burying waste. Maybe the hazardous waste just smells bad and Galindo doesn't want to drive by the waste site on the way to work every day.

Answer choice D says:
According to rivals [A]
B --> C
Therefore, Harris is a poor choice for mayor

A = Harris favors the interests of property developers
B = a good mayor
C = willing to stand up to property developers

This argument assumes that Harris is not willing to stand up to property developers. Again, this is an argument that conflates two different ideas (favoring the interests of developers and being willing to stand up to developers). There is no reason Harris can't do both. Also, even if Harris isn't "a good mayor," he could still be a better choice for mayor than anyone else who is willing to do it.

Answer choice E says:
Latest government figures claim [A]
B
Therefore, /A

A = regional unemployment rate declined in the last six months
B = the region lost thousands of manufacturing jobs

The assumption is that the unemployment rate can't go down in a period when manufacturing jobs were lost. However, maybe it was Amazon that bulldozed a factory in the region and put up an office building. The two ideas (regional unemployment and jobs in a specific industry) are not the same.

Admin note: edited title