Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 33.5K All Categories
- 28.1K LSAT
- 17.1K General
- 5.2K Logical Reasoning
- 1.4K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 70 Podcasts
- 191 Webinars
- 11 Scholarships
- 194 Test Center Reviews
- 2.2K Study Groups
- 112 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 31 November 2024 LSAT
- 18 October 2024 LSAT
- 9 September 2024 LSAT
- 38 August 2024 LSAT
- 28 June 2024 LSAT
- 4 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 22 January 2024 LSAT
- 38 November 2023 LSAT
- 43 October 2023 LSAT
- 14 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 5K Not LSAT
- 4K Law School Admissions
- 13 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 641 Technical Problems
- 287 Off-topic
22.2.25 (Flaw Questions Problem Set 24)
Accounts Playable
Live Sage ⭐
B is definitely a flaw in the argument, but can someone analyze my breakdown of D? Here is my breakdown:
50% of people in the survey believe that politician indicted----->politician resign.
35% believe that that politician resign----->politician convicted.
Therefore, more people think politician indicted----->politician resign than those that believe politician convicted---->politician resign.
What I am looking for: First, the conclusion is about "people" in general, but we are using a survey/poll. This introduces the possibility that the poll was biased/unrepresentative. Second, the conclusion makes a sufficiency/necessity conflation in the second comparative statement (about conviction). I didn't see this at first since, and I caught this flaw during BR.
Answer A: This is OK statistical/inductive reasoning. This would describe the flaw if the answer choice put the words "potentially biased" in front of sample.
Answer B: This is the correct answer since the 35% think resign--->convicted. But, the conclusion is about convicted--->resign. Pretty obvious answer choice if you read the last sentence carefully.
Answer C: What term is ambiguous? At best, the argument assumes that "politicians" and "elected officials" are the same thing, but that is an OK assumption.
Answer
This is what I chose since I failed to see the sufficiency/necessity conflation originally. Would this be correct if the conclusion was correctly stated (if the comparative statement stated resign---->convicted)? Since the two responses convey different beliefs and since the argument is drawing a conclusion/comparison between them, is that a flaw? I am not so sure since the conclusion is about there being "more people" believing X than Y. Since both question were part of the same poll (and presumably same sample size) and since 50% is larger than 35% of that same sample size, would the argument have been valid (assuming there was not sample bias as well)?
Answer E: Why can't the premises all be true?
50% of people in the survey believe that politician indicted----->politician resign.
35% believe that that politician resign----->politician convicted.
Therefore, more people think politician indicted----->politician resign than those that believe politician convicted---->politician resign.
What I am looking for: First, the conclusion is about "people" in general, but we are using a survey/poll. This introduces the possibility that the poll was biased/unrepresentative. Second, the conclusion makes a sufficiency/necessity conflation in the second comparative statement (about conviction). I didn't see this at first since, and I caught this flaw during BR.
Answer A: This is OK statistical/inductive reasoning. This would describe the flaw if the answer choice put the words "potentially biased" in front of sample.
Answer B: This is the correct answer since the 35% think resign--->convicted. But, the conclusion is about convicted--->resign. Pretty obvious answer choice if you read the last sentence carefully.
Answer C: What term is ambiguous? At best, the argument assumes that "politicians" and "elected officials" are the same thing, but that is an OK assumption.
Answer
This is what I chose since I failed to see the sufficiency/necessity conflation originally. Would this be correct if the conclusion was correctly stated (if the comparative statement stated resign---->convicted)? Since the two responses convey different beliefs and since the argument is drawing a conclusion/comparison between them, is that a flaw? I am not so sure since the conclusion is about there being "more people" believing X than Y. Since both question were part of the same poll (and presumably same sample size) and since 50% is larger than 35% of that same sample size, would the argument have been valid (assuming there was not sample bias as well)?Answer E: Why can't the premises all be true?