LSAT 123 – Section 3 – Question 23

LSAT 123 - Section 3 - Question 23

June 2007

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

Target time: 1:03

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
PT123 S3 Q23	+LR	Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw	A 11% 146 B 21% 149 C 4% 146 D 61% 154 E 4% 143	138 148 158	+Medium	144.044 +SubsectionEasier

Political candidates’ speeches are loaded with promises and with expressions of good intention, but one must not forget that the politicians’ purpose in giving these speeches is to get themselves elected. Clearly, then, these speeches are selfishly motivated and the promises made in them are unreliable.

Summarize Argument

The author concludes that politicians’ speeches are selfishly motivated and their promises are unreliable. She supports this by saying that their main goal in giving speeches is to get elected.

Identify and Describe Flaw

This is the cookie-cutter “ad hominem” flaw, where the author attacks the person or group making an argument instead of the argument itself.

Here, the author assumes politicians' promises are unreliable just because they have other motives for making those promises. However, having ulterior motives doesn't necessarily make a promise unreliable.

The argument presumes, without providing justification, that if a person’s promise is not selfishly motivated then that promise is reliable.

The author assumes the opposite of (A). She assumes, without providing justification, that if a person’s promise is selfishly motivated then that promise is unreliable.

The argument presumes, without providing justification, that promises made for selfish reasons are never kept.

The author assumes, without providing justification, that promises made with ulterior motives are unreliable. She doesn’t claim that the promises are never kept, just that they can’t be relied upon. Perhaps some of these promises are still kept, even though they’re unreliable.

The argument confuses the effect of an action with its cause.

The author’s argument doesn’t use causal reasoning at all, so she never confuses an effect with a cause.

The argument overlooks the fact that a promise need not be unreliable just because the person who made it had an ulterior motive for doing so.

In other words, the author overlooks the fact that a promise could still be reliable, even though the person who made it had an ulterior motive for doing so. Having ulterior motives doesn't necessarily make a promise unreliable.

The argument overlooks the fact that a candidate who makes promises for selfish reasons may nonetheless be worthy of the office for which he or she is running.

The author never makes any claims about whether candidates who make promises for selfish reasons are worthy of their office. She just claims that their promises are unreliable.

LSAT 123 – Section 3 – Question 23

LSAT 123 - Section 3 - Question 23

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

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 123 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Leave a Reply Cancel