PrepTest 103, Section 2, Question 17
Commissioner: I have been incorrectly criticized for having(60 more words not shown)
The commissioner's argument is LEAST(8 more words not shown)
- AIt takes for(10 more words not shown)
- BIt draws a(10 more words not shown)
- CIt takes for(15 more words not shown)
- DIt hastily concludes(12 more words not shown)
- EIt takes for(16 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
An accurate report could still be an incomplete basis for a decision.
The commissioner is accused of deciding too soon. To answer that criticism, I would expect an explanation of why the information available at that point was enough, or why the decision could not wait.
Instead, the commissioner says the neighborhood association prepared a report and expresses confidence in its accuracy despite not having studied it thoroughly. Even if every fact in that report were correct, other relevant evidence might still need consideration. Trusting one report does not establish that the decision was timely.
The earlier agreement about jail relocation does not solve that problem either. The commissioner agreed with the association then. That does not show that its current recommendation deserves agreement, or even that the earlier decision was correct.
What we’re looking for
Now watch the question: it asks which criticism the argument is least vulnerable to. Four choices can identify weaknesses; our answer is the criticism that does not fit. My main concern is the unexplained leap from trusting this association to having enough basis for the present decision.
Working the answers
- A
This is a plausible criticism, so eliminate it. The commissioner treats the report's information as accurate without showing that the association's perspective has not distorted it. We do not need to prove that bias actually exists. The weakness is the unexamined confidence that the information is sound.
- BCorrect
Nothing indicates incomplete recollections. The commissioner refers to a past recommendation and recalls agreeing with it, but the argument does not suggest that part of that memory is missing.
“You may recall” introduces the past event; it is not evidence of a faulty or incomplete memory. The past agreement may be a poor reason for the current decision, but that is a different criticism. B invents a problem the passage does not give us, making it the least applicable choice.
- C
This matches our initial objection. The commissioner relies on the association's report without explaining why no other direct evidence needed consideration. Even an accurate report could leave out relevant information available elsewhere. Its existence does not establish that deciding at that point was justified.
- D
The commissioner expressly admits not having studied the report thoroughly while claiming to be sure it is accurate. That invites a criticism of hasty confidence. The argument gives us the very gap between detailed examination and certainty that D describes.
- E
The past agreement is offered as support for trusting the current recommendation. But agreeing with a source on jail relocation does not establish that agreeing with it on the power plant is justified. Different issues can call for different judgments. This criticism fits the purpose the past example serves.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.