This is a flaw question, and we know that because of the question stem: Which one of the following indicates a weakness in the position expressed above?
The author says that the United States has been used and is okay with a large defense budget used to fight against the Eastern bloc. However, the author says that Ince the threat along with the Eastern bloc is disappearing, the author concludes that it’s doubtful whether the public can be persuaded to support an adequate defense budget.
This argument may seem acceptable on surface level, but it’s important to hone in on certain modifiers and adjectives in this stimulus (as is often the case on the LSAT). In the first sentence, the author says that the defense budget is substantial. In the second, he says it’s adequate. Do those two mean the same thing? Especially with the Eastern bloc now dissolving, how do we know that an adequate budget and a substantial budget don’t mean entirely different things? This is where the argument falls short.
Answer Choice (A) is not descriptively accurate; the public isn’t being manipulated according to the argument. Instead, the argument speaks to the public being convinced of something.
Answer Choice (B) is not descriptively accurate either; there isn’t really a causal relationship being established in the argument; if there is, it’s that the eastern bloc caused the public to accept the defense budget, but that’s not what is wrong with the argument.
Answer Choice (C) is not descriptively accurate; the argument doesn’t as fact what it’s seeking to establish. If it was, this argument would feel very circular.
Answer Choice (D) is descriptively inaccurate; they do give a reason, it’s just not a very supportive premise for the conclusion reached.
Correct Answer Choice (E) is descriptively accurate and it’s a flaw. The way “substantial” and “adequate” are used isn’t clear. They could be mean different amounts of money, and the public could support an adequate budget without agreeing with a substantial budget.
This is a flaw question type, and we know this because of the question stem: Which one of the following most clearly identifies an error in the author’s reasoning?
A gas tax of 1 cent per gallon would raise revenue by 1 billion dollars. Since the tax would be 50 cents per gallon would raise the revenue by 50 billion, the author concludes that this would be a great way to deal with the federal deficit. He continues by saying this would result in lower consumption of gas, presumably because the increase in price causes people to stop buying so much of it. Additionally, it would keep them from being too dependent on foreign companies for oil, too.
There is an internal inconsistency - if something would raise revenue, how could its effect also be to lower consumption? The implication here is that if consumption is lowered, the revenue is also going down.
Answer Choice (A) is not descriptively correct; there is no irrelevant data.
Answer Choice (B) is not correct: “relies on incorrect... figures?” How would we know these figures are incorrect? This is out.
Correct Answer Choice (C) reflects the two assumptions about increased revenue and decreased consumption.
Answer Choice (D) is not correct because there is no confusion between cause and effect.
Answer Choice (E) is not correct because the author is not trying to appeal to conscience.
This is a flaw/descriptive weakening question, and we know this because of the question stem: Which one of the following is a flaw in the argument?
The stimulus says that the 1980s has been characterized by a time of selfishness that is dangerous for our cohesiveness. The author then introduces his conclusion that selfish individualism that threatens the cohesion of society is true of any time. He supports this by saying that throughout history all humans have been motivated by selfishness. Then, he provides more support by saying even those acts that would be seen as “unselfish” were actually motivated by selfish concern for the human species.
Hold on - isn’t “selfish concern for the human species” not selfish? If you’re concerned for humans as a species, that’s not the same thing as selfish individualism.
Answer Choice (A) is not descriptively accurate - this claim is very important to providing support to the conclusion.
Answer Choice (B) is descriptively accurate but it’s not the flaw. We don’t need statistical evidence to prove the conclusion.
Answer Choice (C) is descriptively inaccurate; the argument says that selfishness occurs throughout history.
Answer Choice (D) is descriptively accurate; however, whether or not other species are selfish is inconsequential to the argument. We’re talking specifically about humans.
Correct Answer Choice (E) points out the equivocation flaw within the argument; there are two meanings of “selfish” being used: selfish individuals and self concern for the human species.
We can identify this question as Method of Reasoning because of the question stem: “the relationship of Y’s response to X’s argument is that Y’s response…”
When dealing with a Method of Reasoning question, we know we are looking for an answer choice that correctly describes the structure of our entire argument. Our correct answer is going to fit the argument exactly. Our wrong answer choices likely explain argument structures we are familiar with, but that simply don’t apply to the specific question we are looking at. Knowing what the right and wrong answers are going to do, we can jump into the stimulus.
This question presents us with two speakers. Right away, we should recognize that there are two conclusions and two reasons behind them. In this case we are analyzing two speakers taking varying positions on the topic of animal research. Speaker X concludes that medical research should not be reduced given the reason that the tradeoff between human and animal welfare is inevitable in these trials. And obviously, according to X, we should prioritize the humans who would benefit from the suffering of the animals. Essentially telling us that the harm is worth the gains.
Speaker Y undermines this position by changing the rules of the game. What if we can still value human welfare, and experiment on animals, but simply in a way that won’t cause them harm? In doing so, our second speaker points out that the assumption underlying X’s argument does not hold. We can conclude we should not reduce the experiments if there is no other alternative to completing them. Y points out exactly that alternative.
Knowing the conclusions of each speaker and the support behind them, we can jump into answer choice elimination about the methods employed in Y’s response.
Correct Answer Choice (A) This is exactly what we are looking for! This answer choice correctly describes the structure of our entire argument by pointing out that argument A relies on an argument (that experimentation cannot exist without animal suffering) and points out that it does not apply to the constraints of the debate.
Answer Choice (B) This answer choice does not correctly summarize the structure of the argument. By telling us that Y “disagrees with X about the weight to be given to animal suffering” the answer is asserting information we do not see in Y’s argument. The weight of animal suffering is not the issue here. Instead, we are concerned with whether the process of animal suffering is required or not to continue these research projects.
Answer Choice (C) This answer choice does not line up with what we are looking for. By stating that the argument is explaining a “logical consequence” of X’s argument, the answer claims our second speaker is using the reasoning of speaker X against them. But Y is not using the opinions of X - instead, our second speaker points out what assumptions weaken the initial argument.
Answer Choice (D) We can eliminate this answer choice immediately upon seeing the word strengthen. If speaker Y were strengthening speaker X’s argument, we would see something that is attempting to fix the assumption. Our second speaker is attempting to weaken the initial argument by pointing out the assumption speaker X bases their position on does not actually exist.
Answer Choice (E) We can eliminate this answer choice once we see the phrase “supplies a premise.”
Presenting a premise would suggest speaker Y is giving us evidence to go along with the position of speaker X. But we don’t see a premise presented for speaker X’s argument. Instead we see an assumption that makes speaker X unreasonable.
Here we have a Method of Reasoning question, which we know from the question stem: “The argument uses which of the following argumentative techniques?”
After correctly identifying the question type we can use structural analysis to describe the Method of Reasoning used by our speaker.
The stimulus begins with the author’s conclusion; the government has no right to tax earnings from labor. This conclusion follows with the reasoning of the argument. Taxes would require the employee to work for another’s purpose (the government) and it therefore meets one of the qualifications of indentured servitude. This connects back to our overall conclusion because the speaker uses the connection between taxes and indentured servitude to justify a moratorium on taxing labor.
By using indentured servitude as the reasoning for the main point our author is already making an assumption. If this type of work brings us to a conclusion about taxes, our argument assumes that these are two very comparable things. But we don’t know they share every quality – only that both taxing and indentured servitude are both working for another’s purpose. Perhaps taxation includes some sort of greater benefit that would make it ideal despite technically working for “another’s purpose.”
Knowing our correct answer choice will point out our author uses one quality to relate the entirety of two different things, we can jump into answer choice elimination.
Answer Choice (A) This answer choice starts out strong by telling us the stimulus outlines a general principle. But our stimulus does not justify that principle on the basis of a governmental obligation as claimed by this answer choice. For that reason we can take this one out of the running.
Answer Choice (B) By saying that the stimulus infers what will happen on the basis of what happened previously, this answer choice accuses our speaker of using the past as evidence for the future. But instead, our speaker uses a similarity between two ideas to support the conclusion.
Correct Answer Choice (C) This is exactly what we are looking for! This correct answer choice aligns well with our prediction by saying that the author compares two institutions who could have one very contrasting quality.
Answer Choice (D) Citing the authority of a theory means this answer accuses our speaker of using some well respected or renown information to support the conclusion. We can eliminate this answer choice because we know what the author uses as evidence: a comparison, rather than a respected figure.
Answer Choice (E) This answer choice accuses our speaker of presupposing an inevitability - something that is absolutely going to occur. But our stimulus does not get that far. While the speaker asserts that the government has no right to collect labor taxes, we do not know whether the lack of collection will be inevitable.
Here we have a Method of Reasoning question, which we know from the question stem: “James responds to Maria’s argument by…”
After correctly identifying the question type we can use structural analysis to describe the Method of Reasoning used by our speaker.
Immediately we should note we have two speakers in our stimulus. That means we need to be on the lookout for two conclusions and two sets of explanations. Our first speaker, Maria, begins by introducing her conclusion; calling a state totalitarian is misleading. Already we can identify that Maria takes issue with the application of this definition. The reasoning she presents is that no government can truly express total control of every aspect of life. From this we can see the definition Maria approves when it comes to totalitarian regimes. To use the word totalitarian, she expects that country to have total control. Makes sense enough. But is it possible there is another definition of totalitarianism that would make the label accurate?
This question is answered by our second speaker. James widens the interpretation of the term totalitarian. In contrast to Maria, he tells us a totalitarian system is one that tries to control most aspects of society. Just because the government does not succeed in taking total control does not reflect that they really did at least try to seize that control. By doing this we know James is introducing a new possible definition of totalitarianism.
Knowing that our correct answer choice will highlight the way James alters the definition used by Maria, we can jump into answer choice elimination.
Answer Choice (A) This answer choice is incorrect because it focuses on inconsistencies. This answer claims John points out contradictory information in Maria’s argument. We can eliminate this answer choice knowing that John responds by bringing his own interpretation of an important term into the mix.
Answer Choice (B) This answer does not line up with the argument John presents. Instead of providing an explanation of the political conditions as claimed by this answer choice, the second speaker presents us with a different explanation of the definition itself.
Answer Choice (C) By claiming that James “rejects evidence,” this answer choice accuses the second speaker disagrees with one or more of the premises introduced by Maria. But John does not disagree with what Maria has claimed - degree of control is inevitably partial rather than total. It’s the interpretation of the definition that John takes issue with in Maria’s argument. For this reason we can eliminate the answer choice.
Correct Answer Choice (D) This is exactly what we are looking for! This is the only answer choice that correctly indicates that James questions Maria’s position by concluding a different definitions applies to the term totalitarian.
Answer Choice (E) Our second speaker concludes their own definition using considerations not introduced by our first speaker. Instead of explaining that Maria’s premises lead to a different conclusion, James presents new information to support his own position on the definition of totalitarian.