PrepTest 103, Section 2, Question 4
Politician P: My opponent claims that the government(39 more words not shown)
Politician P's reasoning is questionable(3 more words not shown)
- Apresupposing that a(15 more words not shown)
- Bassuming that a(15 more words not shown)
- Cconcluding that a(13 more words not shown)
- Dappealing to wholly(10 more words not shown)
- Einsisting that an(9 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
People may dislike paying more taxes. Does that show the government has no obligation to raise them? The opponent says more school and health-care funding is required. Politician P responds that taxpayers would be upset because they would have less buying power. I can see why that consequence matters to them. But a duty does not disappear just because carrying it out is unpleasant.
Suppose the additional money really were needed to provide essential schooling or health care. Taxpayers could dislike the cost, and the obligation could still exist. We do not have to decide whether it actually exists here to see that P has not ruled it out.
What we’re looking for
For the flaw question, my prediction is that P treats an unpopular consequence as proof that the opponent's position is wrong. We need a connection between making people upset and not having the claimed obligation; P never supplies one.
Working the answers
- A
The objection concerns the tax proposal itself. P does not point to other unpopular views held by the opponent and use those views to dismiss this one. “Other” changes the argument into something we have not been given.
- B
P does not attack the opponent's honesty or character. Saying a policy would upset taxpayers is a criticism of its anticipated effect. It is different from saying the person defending it is untrustworthy.
- CCorrect
P concludes that the opponent's view is mistaken because implementing it would upset taxpayers. “Unhappiness” captures that dissatisfaction with losing buying power.
But the two claims can coexist: taxpayers could be unhappy about higher taxes, and the government could still have an obligation to impose them. Showing an unpleasant consequence does not, by itself, show the position is false.
- D
The loss of buying power is a consequence of the tax increase being discussed. It is not wholly unrelated to the policy. The problem is how much P tries to establish with it: the fact that people dislike the cost does not settle whether the government has an obligation. Relevant information can still be insufficient for a conclusion.
- E
The opponent claims that an obligation exists. P argues against that claim. E describes asserting an obligation without support, but the reasoning we are evaluating is P's rejection of the obligation. Keep track of whose argument the question asks us to assess.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.