LSAT 155 – Section 4 – Question 15

LSAT 155 - Section 4 - Question 15

November 2019

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:14

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
PT155 S4 Q15
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Causal Reasoning +CausR
A
1%
150
B
6%
155
C
13%
154
D
77%
161
E
3%
152
136
146
156
 +Medium 147.589 +SubsectionMedium

Candidate: In each election in the last ten years, the candidate who supported property tax reform received a significant majority of the votes in the northeastern part of my district. In no other part of my district has there been any discernible pattern of voting for or against property tax reform. Therefore, in order to attract additional voters in the northeastern part of my district without alienating voters elsewhere, all I need to do is to go on record as favoring property tax reform.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author concludes that by going on record as favoring property tax reform, she can attract additional voters in the northeastern part of the district without alienating voters elsewhere. This is based on the fact that in each election over the past 10 years, the candidate who supported property tax reform received a majority of the votes in the northeastern part of the district. No other part of the district has a detectible voting pattern for or against property tax reform.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that the correlation between gaining a majority of votes in the northeastern part of the district and supporting property tax reform is explained by a causal relationship between the support and the votes. But the support for property tax reform might have had nothing to do with why the candidate got votes.

A
would not attempt to enact property tax reform if elected
The conclusion concerns what the author believes will win votes. Whether a candidate would actually attempt to enact reform is not relevant, because the argument concerns the effects of supporting such reforms. One might be able to win votes simply from support.
B
draws opposite conclusions about voting patterns in different parts of the district
There’s nothing flawed about drawing opposite conclusions if the evidence supports those differing conclusion. The evidence shows a discernible pattern in the northeast, but no discernible pattern elsewhere. So there’s nothing flawed about drawing different conclusions.
C
draws a general conclusion about patterns of voting based on a small sample
We have no reason to think the conclusion is based on a “small” sample. The sample includes the results of votes over elections in the past 10 years. This could be dozens of elections. We have no idea whether the sample is too small.
D
surmises from the fact that two phenomena are correlated that one causes the other
There’s a correlation between winning more votes in the northeast and supporting tax reform. The author assumes that the support for tax reform is what caused candidates to win more votes. This doesn’t have to be true. So we can’t conclude that supporting tax reform will attract additional voters.
E
draws a conclusion based solely on data that are ten years old
There’s nothing inherently flawed about drawing a conclusion from data that’s ten years old. In any case, the argument isn’t based “solely” on data that’s ten years old. The data concerns elections throughout the last 10 years.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 155 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply