LSAT 119 – Section 3 – Question 02

LSAT 119 - Section 3 - Question 02

June 2005

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Ask a tutor

Target time: 0:59

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT119 S3 Q02
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Link Assumption +LinkA
Analogy +An
A
4%
159
B
1%
154
C
89%
164
D
1%
157
E
5%
158
120
134
148
 +Easiest 145.195 +SubsectionEasier

Benson: In order to maintain the quality of life in our city, we need to restrict growth. That is why I support the new zoning regulations.

Willett: I had heard such arguments ten years ago, and again five years ago. Each time the city council was justified in deciding not to restrict growth. Since there is nothing new in this idea of restricting growth, I oppose the regulations.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Willett concludes, contra Benson, that the new zoning regulations should be opposed. His reason for doing so is that he believes he was justified in opposing previous zoning regulations.

Identify and Describe Flaw
Willett’s reasoning is questionable because he can’t make a definitive conclusion about the present/future based only on the past. Even if the previously proposed regulations were unjustified, the new regulations might be worth supporting. The city could have changed in the several years since the previous regulations were proposed.

A
It presumes that growth is necessarily good without offering support for that position.
We don’t know that Willett thinks that growth is necessarily good—we only know that he thinks growth is good for a specific city at some specific times.
B
It is based on attacking Benson personally rather than responding to Benson’s reasoning.
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of attacking the source of argument rather than its content (ad hominem); it isn’t relevant here, because Willett isn’t making a personal attack.
C
It ignores the possibility that new reasons for restricting growth have arisen in the past five years.
If new reasons for restricting growth have arisen, it means that Willett’s reliance on old reasons to oppose the regulations is unsound. This is the problem of induction that Willett failed to account for.
D
It fails to take into account the variety of factors that contribute to the quality of life in a city.
This isn’t the problem with the argument, because the number of different factors contributing to city quality of life is irrelevant to Willett’s conclusion.
E
It overlooks the possibility that the city council of ten years ago was poorly qualified to decide on zoning regulations.
Even if the council of ten years ago was poorly qualified, their decision to oppose regulations could have been correct. And even if they were correct to oppose those regulations, that wouldn’t be enough to justify opposing the new regulations—which is the flaw in Willett’s reasoning.

The question stem reads: which of the following most accurately describes a way in which Willet's reasoning is questionable? This is a Flaw question.

The stimulus begins with Benson's argument. Because we are interested in Willet's argument, we do not need to evaluate Benson's argument. However, it is still important to read Benson's argument to understand the context in which Willet's reply is made. Benson believes that maintaining the quality of life in his city requires that the city restrict growth. That is why he supports the new zoning regulations.

Willet replies that he heard the same argument (that protecting the quality of life requires restricting growth) ten years ago and five years ago. He then says both times; the city council was justified in not restricting growth. So he agrees with the city council's decision not to restrict growth. Willet claims that since there is nothing new in this idea of restricting growth, he opposes the new zoning regulations that restrict growth.

Right here, we have the fallacious reasoning that what is true of the past must be true of the future, which is an example of the Problem of Induction. The classic example is concluding that all swans must be white because you have only seen white swans. The conclusion is proven false once you eventually encounter a black swan. Similarly, Willet is assuming that because the city council was justified in not restricting growth in the past, it must be the case that there is no reason to restrict growth now. However, there may be new reasons the city should restrict growth that didn't exist five and ten years ago.

Answer Choice (A) is incorrect because Willet does not presume growth is necessarily good. We do not know his opinion on growth at all, only that the city council justified not restricting growth five and 10 years ago.

Answer Choice (B) is incorrect because there is no attack on Benson's personality.

Correct Answer Choice (C) is what we discussed. Benson assumed that what was true in the past must be true in the present/future. However, there might be new reasons to restrict growth now that did not exist five and ten years ago.

Answer Choice (D) is incorrect because other factors contributing to quality of life are irrelevant not only to Willet's argument but Benson's also to Benson's argument. Benso claims that restricting growth is necessary for maintaining the quality of life (maintain quality of life -> restrict growth). So it would not matter how many other factors contribute to maintaining quality of life; failing to restrict growth would result in an inability to maintain quality of life ( the contrapositive: /restrict growth -> /maintain quality of life).

Answer Choice (E) is arbitrary. If you picked this, you likely missed that Willet claimed: "The city council was justified in deciding not to restrict growth." It does not matter how qualified or poorly qualified they were; their decisions were justified. One can both be poorly qualified to make a decision and end up making a justified decision. One can also be both highly qualified to make a decision and also make an unjustified decision (looking at you, American politics).

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 119 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply