LSAT 143 – Section 1 – Question 18

LSAT 143 - Section 1 - Question 18

June 2015

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:05

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 Q18
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Conditional Reasoning +CondR
A
13%
159
B
80%
165
C
3%
156
D
2%
154
E
2%
156
142
151
159
 +Medium 148.401 +SubsectionMedium

Police captain: The chief of police has indicated that gifts of cash or objects valued at more than $100 count as graft. However, I know with certainty that no officer in my precinct has ever taken such gifts, so the recent accusations of graft in my precinct are unfounded.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the recent accusations of graft in his precinct are unfounded. This is based on the fact that no officer in the precinct has ever taken a gift of cash or objects valued at more than $100. In addition, if someone accepts gifts of cash or objects valued at more than $100, that constitutes graft.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The author overlooks the possibility that there are other things that also count as graft besides gifts of cash or objects valued at more than $100. In other words, the author assumes that the only things that are considered graft are gifts of cash or objects valued at more than $100.

A
bases a rebuttal of accusations of graft on knowledge about only a limited sample of officers
The argument isn’t based on a limited sample of officers. The premise asserts that “no officer in my precinct” has ever accept gifts of cash/objects valued at more than $100. The conclusion is about the author’s precinct. The conclusion isn’t about a broader group of officers.
B
fails to consider that there may be other instances of graft besides those indicated by the chief of police
The author overlooks that there may be other actions that constitute graft. If other things can count as graft, then even if the officers did not accept the gifts discussed, that doesn’t absolve them of potentially having committed graft through other actions.
C
bases a claim about the actions of individuals on an appeal to the character of those individuals
The author’s premise doesn’t involve an appeal to the character of the officers. The premise establishes that the officers have not committed one action that would count is graft. This doesn’t establish anything about the officers’ character.
D
takes for granted that if the accusations of graft are unfounded, so is any accusation of corruption
The conclusion concerns only accusations of graft. The author does not assert anything about accusations of corruption.
E
relies on a premise that contradicts the conclusion drawn in the argument
The author’s premise is that no officer in the precinct has taken gifts of cash/objects at more than $100 dollars. This doesn’t contradict the conclusion, which is that accusations of graft are unfounded.

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