LSAT 143 – Section 1 – Question 07

LSAT 143 - Section 1 - Question 07

June 2015

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 0:44

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
PT143 S1 Q07
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Part v. Whole +PvW
A
1%
153
B
2%
156
C
3%
155
D
3%
157
E
91%
164
134
143
151
 +Medium 148.401 +SubsectionMedium

Political advertisement: Sherwood campaigns as an opponent of higher taxes. But is anybody fooled? For the last 10 years, while Sherwood served on the city council, the council consistently increased taxes year after year. Break the cycle of higher and higher taxes: reject Sherwood’s bid for reelection to city council.

Summarize Argument
The author’s implicit conclusion is that Sherwood is not an opponent of higher taxes. This is based on the fact that over the last 10 years, Sherwood has served on the city council, and the council has consistently increased taxes every year.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that Sherwood isn’t an opponent of higher taxes because the council she served on voted for more taxes. This overlooks the possibility that Sherwood is an opponent of higher taxes, voted against higher taxes, but was simply outvoted by others on the council who favored more taxes.

A
bases a crucial generalization on a very limited sample
The argument doesn’t generalize based on a sample. The author points to the council’s votes concerning taxes as evidence of Sherwood’s mindset. The claim that Sherwood isn’t opposed to higher taxes isn’t a generalization.
B
fails to consider the possibility that something that is unavoidable might nonetheless be undesirable
It’s not clear that anything was “unavoidable.” So the possibility (B) points out has no impact on the argument’s reasoning.
C
mistakes something that is sufficient to bring about a result for something that is necessary to bring about that result
The argument isn’t based on conditional reasoning, so there’s no confusion of sufficient and necessary conditions.
D
makes a personal attack on someone who holds a certain view rather than addressing the reasonableness of that view
(D) describes an argument in which the author comments on Sherwood’s background/character/motives as a way to counter Sherwood’s view. This doesn’t happen. The author doesn’t try to say that taxes are good/bad because of a personal attack on Sherwood.
E
takes for granted that a characteristic of a group as a whole is shared by an individual member of that group
The author assumes that a feature of a group (the city council favors higher taxes) is shared by an individual member of that group (Sherwood). This is flawed because Sherwood might be opposed to higher taxes even if the council as a whole, as shown through votes, isn’t.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 143 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply