PrepTest 102, Section 4, Question 4
Columnist: The country is presently debating legislation that,(69 more words not shown)
The columnist's argument is flawed(2 more words not shown)
- Aattacks legislation by(11 more words not shown)
- Bassails legislation on(11 more words not shown)
- Cattempts to discredit(13 more words not shown)
- Dpresupposes that legislation(18 more words not shown)
- Erejects legislation on(21 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
I can think of questions to ask about the bill itself. Would the added employment costs lead manufacturers to hire fewer people? Could they afford the benefits without cutting jobs? Those would be questions about what the policy does.
The columnist goes somewhere else. Some supporters belong to groups with a violent history, and others face tax-evasion charges. Even if we accept those facts, what do they establish about paid vacations, overtime pay, or child care?
A person with objectionable conduct can support a good idea. Imagine someone who cheated on taxes also favoring safer workplaces. The cheating wouldn't establish that workplace safety is a bad goal. We still need to examine the policy. A large proposal can attract supporters with very different backgrounds, and pointing to the least appealing supporters doesn't settle its merits.
What we’re looking for
The flaw question asks us to describe that move. The columnist urges us to defeat the bill because of who supports it, instead of showing what is wrong with the bill. Our earlier questions about costs could become policy objections if evidence supported them. This argument doesn't develop those objections.
Working the answers
- A
“Originators” means the people who created or introduced the legislation. The passage identifies questionable supporters, not the people responsible for writing or originating the bill. Someone can support legislation without having created it. A targets the wrong group.
- BCorrect
The columnist attacks the legislation through the questionable character of some supporters. Their history or alleged wrongdoing is supposed to make us reject the bill. But those facts don't establish that the proposed employment benefits are bad policy. We need an argument about the legislation's merits, not just unfavorable descriptions of people on its side.
- C
An appeal to sympathy for people harmed by the bill might describe struggling manufacturers or employees who could lose their jobs. The columnist gives no such account. The attack concerns the supporters' character, not public feeling for people adversely affected by the proposal.
- D
We aren't told that the bill has few supporters. The columnist objects to the kind of people supporting it, not to an insufficient number. A popular bill could receive exactly the criticism made here, so a small supporter count isn't the argument's basis.
- E
The columnist doesn't claim the supporters depend on these manufacturers or expose a contradiction between their interests and their policy position. The accusations are about violent group histories and tax-evasion charges. Whatever we think of those allegations, they aren't an argument that the supporters are inconsistently burdening businesses they need.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.