PrepTest 114, Section 4, Question 8
Politician: My opponent says our zoning laws too(40 more words not shown)
The politician's reasoning is most(7 more words not shown)
- Aits characterization of(12 more words not shown)
- Bit neglects the(20 more words not shown)
- Cit fails to(6 more words not shown)
- Dits discussion of(12 more words not shown)
- Eit ignores the(12 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Living in a house doesn't mean you think everyone should live in a house.
Before deciding whether the zoning laws should change, I'd want to know what housing the area needs. More apartments might make sense in one place and not another. That is a question about the proposal's merits. The politician instead tells us where the opponent lives.
Suppose the opponent likes living in the country but thinks a more crowded area needs additional apartments. Those views fit together perfectly well. Even in the same area, wanting the law to encourage several forms of housing wouldn't require choosing each form for your own home.
What we’re looking for
The flaw question asks what is wrong with rejecting the argument on this basis. My prediction is that the opponent's housing choice doesn't answer the zoning question. The proposal could be good or bad, but we need to evaluate its reasons instead of treating the speaker's address as a refutation.
Working the answers
- A
We don't know whether the politician has a general prejudice against apartment buildings. The response attacks the opponent's supposed inconsistency. That attack could be flawed even if the politician had no broad dislike of apartments. A assigns a personal attitude rather than identifying why the given reason fails.
- B
Whether apartments are equally easy to build in different locations could matter in a discussion of construction. But the politician hasn't argued that building them in the suburbs is too difficult. The offered objection is the opponent's lifestyle. B doesn't identify the problem with using that lifestyle to dismiss the proposal.
- C
Learning where this politician lives wouldn't fix the argument. A house, an apartment or some other home would still leave us needing reasons about the zoning laws. The same point applies to both speakers: their personal housing choices don't settle the public-policy question.
- DCorrect
The opponent's address doesn't tell us whether the laws favor one housing type too strongly or should encourage more alternatives. The politician substitutes a criticism of the person for an assessment of that argument.
The claimed contradiction is questionable to begin with: choosing a house can coexist with supporting apartments. But even pointing out a real personal inconsistency would not, by itself, show that the zoning proposal lacks merit. D directs us back to the reasons relevant to the proposal.
- E
Perhaps the opponent once lived in an apartment. That might change the story we tell about the opponent, but it isn't needed to assess the argument. Someone could have lived only in houses and still offer sound reasons for encouraging apartments. We don't need to repair the person's biography; we need to evaluate the proposal.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.