PrepTest 106, Section 3, Question 2
A number of Grandville's wealthiest citizens have been(35 more words not shown)
The argument is most vulnerable(5 more words not shown)
- Aconfuses a result(10 more words not shown)
- Bmistakes a temporal(5 more words not shown)
- Cassumes that because(15 more words not shown)
- Djudges only by(12 more words not shown)
- Egeneralizes on the(7 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Some wealthy residents have been criminals. What about the wealthy residents who haven't?
“A number” doesn't tell us how representative those criminals are. They could be a small minority of the city's wealthy people. Imagine a wealthy applicant with an excellent ethical record. The premise could still be true, yet it would supply no reason to reject that applicant merely for being wealthy.
There is another question we could ask: does having committed a crime always establish poor ethics? Someone might have broken an unjust law. That is a possible objection to the moral judgment, but the clearest problem here comes even before that: the author uses some people's conduct to exclude everyone in a much larger group.
What we’re looking for
The flaw question should capture that leap. Wanting committee members whose ethics are “beyond reproach”—not open to justified criticism—doesn't justify treating a few wealthy criminals as evidence against every wealthy candidate.
Working the answers
- A
The argument doesn't identify a result and mistake it for something that produces the result. It gives examples of wealthy people with criminal histories, then applies an exclusion to all wealthy people. The trouble is the reach of the generalization, not confusion between a cause and its result.
- B
“Temporal” means having to do with time. This would describe moving from something happening before or alongside something else to a conclusion that it caused the other thing. The argument doesn't rely on that sort of timing. It relies on the conduct of some members of a group.
- C
We aren't told that the criminals intended any particular outcome, and the author doesn't infer an intention from an action's result. The conclusion concerns who should be excluded from the committee, not what the individuals meant to accomplish.
- D
We could debate standards of ethical conduct, but the passage doesn't establish this contrast between subjective and objective ways of evaluating it. Even with a perfectly clear ethical standard, the author would still need a reason to apply some wealthy people's misconduct to all wealthy applicants.
- ECorrect
The criminals could be exceptional cases among wealthy residents. The argument never shows that they represent the group, yet it recommends excluding every wealthy person.
The standard for committee membership might be demanding, and these particular criminals might fail it. Neither point establishes that all wealthy people fail. E identifies that unwarranted expansion from examples to a whole-group judgment.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.