LSAT - Law School Admission Argument Flaw Identification Questions and Answers — Questions and Answers
Question 1: City official: 'Since the implementation of the 'Midnight Basketball' program, which provides recreational activities for teenagers in the evenings, the rate of juvenile crime in our city has decreased by 15%. This proves that the 'Midnight Basketball' program is a successful deterrent to juvenile crime.' The reasoning in the city official's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it...
- presumes that a correlation between two events establishes a causal relationship. (Correct answer)
- relies on statistical data that may be inaccurate or misleading.
- fails to consider other programs that may have contributed to the decrease in crime.
- does not specify the types of juvenile crimes that have decreased.
Correct answer: presumes that a correlation between two events establishes a causal relationship.
The argument's flaw is assuming that because the crime rate dropped *after* the basketball program started, the program *caused* the drop. This is a classic correlation-causation fallacy. While the program and the crime decrease are correlated, there could be other reasons for the decrease (e.g., increased police patrols, a new community center, a change in local economic conditions). The argument incorrectly concludes causation from a mere sequence of events.
Question 2: Literary Critic: 'I have reviewed the last two novels by author Jane Doe, and both were poorly written, with convoluted plots and underdeveloped characters. It is clear from these examples that Jane Doe is an author incapable of writing a compelling novel.' The literary critic's argument is flawed because it...
- attacks the author's character rather than her work.
- relies on the subjective judgment of a single critic.
- draws a sweeping conclusion based on a small and potentially unrepresentative sample. (Correct answer)
- fails to define what constitutes a 'compelling novel'.
Correct answer: draws a sweeping conclusion based on a small and potentially unrepresentative sample.
The critic makes a very broad claim about Jane Doe's entire capability as an author based on only two of her books. This is a hasty generalization. The two novels reviewed might be her weakest works, or early works, and not representative of her overall talent or body of work. The evidence is insufficient to support such a strong, universal conclusion.
Question 3: A university's policy states: 'Any student who wishes to graduate with honors must have a grade point average of 3.5 or higher.' Susan is a student at the university with a grade point average of 3.8. Therefore, the university will certainly grant Susan graduation with honors. The reasoning in the argument is flawed because it...
- overlooks the possibility that there are other requirements for graduating with honors.
- assumes that Susan's grade point average will not change before graduation.
- confuses a condition that is required for an outcome with a condition that guarantees the outcome. (Correct answer)
- relies on a university policy that may be subject to change.
Correct answer: confuses a condition that is required for an outcome with a condition that guarantees the outcome.
This argument commits an error in conditional reasoning. The policy states that a 3.5 GPA is a *necessary* condition for honors (you *must* have it). The argument then incorrectly treats this necessary condition as a *sufficient* condition, assuming that because Susan meets this one requirement, the outcome is guaranteed. There could be other necessary conditions, such as completing a thesis or having no academic integrity violations.
Question 4: Political Analyst: 'Councilman Thompson's proposal to fund a new public park is fiscally irresponsible. We cannot trust his judgment on public spending, as it was recently revealed that he has significant personal credit card debt and recently declared bankruptcy. Therefore, the city council should reject his proposal.' The analyst's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on which one of the following grounds?
- It fails to provide any evidence that the park proposal itself is fiscally irresponsible.
- It attacks the councilman's personal financial situation instead of the merits of his proposal. (Correct answer)
- It assumes that personal financial management skills are relevant to managing public funds.
- It does not consider the potential benefits that a new public park could bring to the city.
Correct answer: It attacks the councilman's personal financial situation instead of the merits of his proposal.
The argument commits an ad hominem fallacy. Instead of analyzing the details, costs, and benefits of the park proposal, the analyst attacks Councilman Thompson's personal character and financial history. The merits of an argument or proposal are independent of the character of the person presenting it. The argument shifts focus from the proposal to the person, which is a logical flaw.
Question 5: Advertisement: 'Our new pain reliever, SwiftRelief, is the best on the market because no other pain reliever has been proven to work faster. When you are in pain, you should demand the best.' The advertisement's reasoning is flawed because it...
- equivocates on the meaning of the word 'best'. (Correct answer)
- appeals to the emotions of potential customers rather than to logic.
- fails to consider the potential side effects of the pain reliever.
- assumes that speed of relief is the only important quality for a pain reliever.
Correct answer: equivocates on the meaning of the word 'best'.
The argument uses the word 'best' in two different senses, which is an equivocation fallacy. First, it establishes that SwiftRelief is 'best' in the narrow sense of being the *fastest* (or, more precisely, that no other is proven faster). It then concludes you should demand SwiftRelief because it is 'best' in a general, all-encompassing sense of overall quality. Speed is only one factor; 'best' could also relate to effectiveness, duration, side effects, or cost. The argument illicitly shifts the meaning of a key term.
Question 6: Sociologist: 'Every member of the research team is an expert in their respective field—we have a leading statistician, a renowned ethnographer, and a developmental psychologist with decades of experience. Therefore, the research team as a whole is guaranteed to be an expert team.' The reasoning is flawed because it...
- assumes that properties of the individual parts of a group necessarily apply to the group as a whole. (Correct answer)
- appeals to the authority of the researchers without providing evidence for their claims.
- fails to consider that the members' areas of expertise might not be relevant to the research topic.
- relies on the ambiguous term 'expert'.
Correct answer: assumes that properties of the individual parts of a group necessarily apply to the group as a whole.
This argument commits a fallacy of composition, also known as a part-to-whole flaw. It assumes that because each individual member of the team has a positive quality (being an expert), the team as a collective unit will automatically possess that same quality. However, a team of experts can fail to function as an expert team due to poor communication, conflicting methodologies, or lack of leadership. The quality of the parts does not guarantee the quality of the whole.
LSAT - Law School Admission Argument Flaw Identification Questions and Answers
City official: 'Since the implementation of the 'Midnight Basketball' program, which provides recreational activities for teenagers in the evenings, the rate of juvenile crime in our city has decreased by 15%.
This proves that the 'Midnight Basketball' program is a successful deterrent to juvenile crime.'
The reasoning in the city official's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it...