PT48.S1.Q24 - Can One Acknowledge a Logical Flaw but Agree with the Conclusion?

tonypepperoni

The question stem asks: "The reasoning in the journalist's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument fails to consider that..." and the correct answer, E, says the flaw is that those who donate might not be those who join the party, making the necessary 30% benchmark of support unreachable.

However, this would then SUPPORT the conclusion of the journalist, who says that an educational party is unviable in the long-run.

So, is it then possible to support a conclusion, but criticize a stimulus for failing to do the best possible job of constructing its conclusion (i.e. here we criticize the argument, but not the conclusion)? If anything, this feels like an assumption question.

Hopefully my question makes sense.

Thanks!

https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-48-section-1-question-24/

clear227

This question is about a journalist who thinks the education party won't be viable in the long run. You are out to prove this guy wrong and find the "flaw" in his argument.

It's a math question, and it has to do with two groups overlapping: the joiners and the donators. Journalism guy says "you need 30% of the population to give money or join the party". The "or" is critical to getting this question. The fact is that 26% would join it, and 16% would donate money to it.

What if there were no overlap between these two groups?

If so, then 26+16= 42% of people would join or give money. So, that's more than 30%. Aka, the historical fact journalist guy mentions doesn't apply, and maybe he is wrong.

Another way to think of it is "you need 30 people who want to join or give money to succeed". You have 26 people who want to join, and 16 people who want to donate. You have 42 people, more than 30, so success is still possible.

nye8870

Best explanation Above