23.3.16 (Flaw Questions Problem Set 21)

Accounts Playable

I understand that C is true and is a flaw in the argument, but I still don't understand how you can eliminate A. Here is my breakdown:

Generally, professors grew up in economically advantaged homes (MP). Evidence of this is the fact that professors grew up in communities with average household incomes that were higher than the national average.

What I am looking for: The argument makes a whole to part flaw. Did the professors actually live in the higher income households in the community? What if they only lived in the low income households? This could be true since we are only given an average of the income in the communities. Also, does household income being higher than the national average mean economically advantaged? I am not so sure. High household income is just one part of "economic advantage;" there could be other economic things such as government policies towards rich people that can nullify the high income advantage. In other words, there are a ton of factors that go into defining "economic advantage," not just income.

Answer A: I don't see how this is incorrect. Isn't this pointing out the flaw that "high household income" might not actually mean "economic advantage?"

Answer B: This is consistent with the argument due to the word "generally" in the passage.

Answer C: This is definitely a flaw in the argument since it points out the assumption that the professors actually lived in the "good" households in the community.

Answer Who cares about the private sector?

Answer E: Who cares about where they live now. We only care about where/how they grew up.

nye8870

First of all @"Accounts Playable" , I must state for the record how much I appreciate the tireless and unwavering scrutiny you bring to these tough questions. If it weren’t for LSAT students like you they would probably never admit error and omit questions. In this particular case it seems awfully suspicious that they put an answer choice like this in here. Smells like a baited trap. Of course someone with your keen eye is going to recognize that they shifted from economically advantaged to higher than average household income. I am not 100% on this but I feel like the problem is not that the argument asserts a correlation between the two terms so much as it falsely equates them. I feel like if the answer said: “fails to consider that higher average incomes do not always lead to an economically advantaged ~position~” then you’d really be on to something. I would also like to hear some further input for this one.

Accounts Playable

@nye8870 Thanks for the kind words! And thanks for your diligent responses!

This is a very hard question, and I have read through A a few more times; my only reasoning for eliminating it is the fact that the argument doesn't really establish a correlation between the two (this still seems odd since the argument is causal, and for there to be cause, there must be a correlation at least). Other than that, I got nothing.

I agree that your rephrase of answer A would probably be enough to turn it into a correct answer choice.