LSAT 131 – Section 3 – Question 05

LSAT 131 - Section 3 - Question 05

December 2009

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:11

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
PT131 S3 Q05
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Causal Reasoning +CausR
A
0%
145
B
0%
151
C
98%
164
D
1%
152
E
1%
158
120
127
136
 +Easiest 146.026 +SubsectionMedium

Challenger: The mayor claims she has vindicated those who supported her in the last election by fulfilling her promise to increase employment opportunities in our city, citing the 8 percent increase in the number of jobs in the city since she took office. But during her administration, the national government relocated an office to our city, bringing along nearly the entire staff from the outside. The 8 percent increase merely represents the jobs held by these newcomers.

Mayor: Clearly my opponent does not dispute the employment statistics. The unemployed voters in this city want jobs. The 8 percent increase in the number of jobs during my term exceeds that of any of my predecessors.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The mayor counters the challenger’s position and implicitly concludes that she has vindicated her voters by fulfilling her promise to increase job availability. She notes that unemployed voters want jobs and that the 8% increase in the number of jobs during her term is higher than any of her predecessors.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The mayor ignores the challenger’s primary argument, which is that the 8% job increase came from a government office moving to the city with its entire staff. Because she fails to address this, the mayor doesn’t effectively counter the challenger’s argument.

A
takes for granted that those who supported the mayor in the last election believed job availability to be a significant city issue
The mayor does argue that job availability was important to her voters by saying, “The unemployed voters in this city want jobs.” But (A) doesn't describe a flaw in her argument.
B
does not consider whether the number of unemployed persons within the city represents more than 8 percent of the eligible voters
The mayor doesn’t address this, but it doesn’t describe a flaw in her argument. Even if unemployed people represent more than 8% of voters, it doesn’t change the fact that there was an 8% increase in the number of jobs during her term.
C
fails to address the challenger’s objection that the 8 percent increase did not result in an increase in job availability for those who lived in the city at the time of the last election
The mayor fails to address the objection that the 8% job increase came from a government office moving to the city with its entire staff, rather than from increased job availability for her unemployed voters.
D
ignores the challenger’s contention that the influx of newcomers during the mayor’s administration has increased the size of the voting public and altered its priorities
The challenger doesn’t make this contention. He never argues that the newcomers increased the size of the voting public and altered its priorities, so the mayor doesn't need to address this point.
E
explicitly attributes to the challenger beliefs that the challenger has neither asserted nor implied
The mayor only claims that the challenger agrees with the employment statistics. Since the challenger does cite these statistics, she isn’t falsely attributing a belief to him.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 131 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply