This is a flaw question, and we know that because of the question stem: A flaw in the reasoning in the argument above is that this argument…
We’re told that a when liquid from a bottle labeled “vinegar” is added to a box labeled “baking soda”, it does not fizz. Usually, when baking soda and acidic liquid (like vinegar) is combine, fizzing occurs. Because of this, the author concludes that the bottle was mislabeled. However, is this the only thing mislabeled? We don’t have enough evidence to rule out that the box was not mislabeled. We also can’t rule out that the vinegar is just gone bad and that’s why it’s not reacting.
Answer Choice (A) is not descriptively accurate; this is exactly what he’s suggesting.
Correct Answer Choice (B) is descriptively accurate and it’s the flaw. We already listed out two possibilities it could have been that the stimulus fails to rule out.
Answer Choice (C) is descriptively inaccurate; the use of the term fizz does not change.
Answer Choice (D) is descriptively accurate (it’s not entirely that principles can only be tested in labs, but let’s grant that it is); however, this is not a scientific principle.
Answer Choice (E) is descriptively inaccurate - the argument does not saying anything about the intention to deceive.
This is a flaw question, and we know that because of the question stem: As a rebuttal of Giselle’s argument, Antoine’s response is ineffective because…
Giselle’s conclusion is that the government should raise sales tax on gas. Why? Well, because the government needs to make sure that the public consumes less petrol and when things cost more, people buy less of it.
Antoine’s conclusion is that the government should not raise the tax on gas because it’s not fair to gas users. Instead, if gas prices are to be increased, it should be in such a way that it’s a burden to everyone - not just the gas users.
Giselle’s argument is definitely weak - there is no firm evidence that taxes on gas should be increased. There are plenty of other ways to make people stop using gas, including giving people incentives or just restricting the supply of gas (which will inflate the price of gas itself, making the gas extremely expensive). However, Antoine’s government doesn’t effectively address Giselle’s argument as much as it disagrees with her conclusion and fails to address the validity of her conclusion. In addition, he talks about increasing the government’s revenue; that’s not what Giselle’s argument is about. Her argument surrounds cutting gas consumption, not about getting the government more money.
Correct Answer Choice (A) works because it’s descriptively accurate and it points out where Antoine fails to address Giselle’s argument - on the LSAT, disagreeing with someone’s conclusion involves demonstrating that their premised doesn’t allow for their conclusion to be made. Antoine fails to do this.
Answer Choice (B) is descriptively accurate but it’s not a flaw. He’s talking about being fair to users of gasoline; we don’t need to know the number of taxpayers that are not gasoline users.
Answer Choice (C) is descriptively accurate, but it’s now a flaw. While fairness is subjective, he does support his argument by explaining for it’s unfair.
Answer Choice (D) is descriptively inaccurate. Giselle says that the government should increase taxes on gas - it’s okay for Antoine to assume this.
Answer Choice (E) is descriptively inaccurate. He is not making the assumption that the government’s revenues should/can be increased in other ways. He’s argument that, if these taxes are increased, it should raise the government’s revenue in a way that doesn’t burden just the group of users.
This is a method of reasoning “except” question, which means there will be 4 answer choices that are method of reasoning answer choices that are correct and one that is not a method of reasoning used in the argument - the latter is the correct answer. We know this is a MR question because of the questions stem: In order to advance her point of view, the author does all of the following EXCEPT...
The first sentence gives us a question: do people who pluck their gray hairs out have a more negative attitude toward older people than those who don’t care about their grays? The answer is given in a conditional: If a person’s psychopathology does not make them overgeneralize, there is no connection. This is because it’s fine to dislike the idea of getting older while liking elderly people. The other reason is that it’s immoral to dislike older people just because they’re old, according to the stimulus. Adding onto this, there is nothing wrong about disliking the idea of getting older. That conditional is our conclusion and everything after that is support given for this conclusion.
Answer Choice (A) describes what the conclusion is doing - it’s saying the assertion posed in the question is not necessary.
Answer Choice (B) is what the author is doing in the third sentence: “Clearly, it is reasonable...”
Answer Choice (C) is a method of reasoning employed in the stimulus - the general principle is the fact that it is immoral to be ageist.
Correct Answer Choice (D) is a method of reasoning that is NOT used in the stimulus. We’re leaning into stereotypes of the elderly (graying, eyesight), not discrediting them.
Answer Choice (E) is a method used - it’s the fourth sentence.