PrepTest 117, Section 3, Question 14
City council member: Despite the city's desperate need(102 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the city(6 more words not shown)
- Athe issue of(22 more words not shown)
- Bthe mayor's course(17 more words not shown)
- Cthe council member's(13 more words not shown)
- Dthat a person(25 more words not shown)
- Ethe possibility remains(22 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The mayor's family can benefit without the city losing out.
Before accusing the mayor of sacrificing the city, I want to know whether the financial objection is right. Fees would raise money on the projects that still happen. But they could also discourage projects, leaving the city with less revenue from development overall. The mayor cites figures supporting that concern. The council member hasn't shown that those figures are wrong.
Instead, the council member points to the mayor's family having an interest in real estate development. I agree that's worth noticing. The family would have a reason to oppose extra fees. But what if the mayor's figures check out? Blocking the fees could protect the family's interests and prevent a net loss to the city at the same time.
What we’re looking for
The flaw is the failure to address that possibility. A personal stake gives us a reason to examine someone's argument; it doesn't settle whether the argument is correct. We're looking for an answer explaining why benefiting the mayor's family doesn't establish that the mayor is acting against the city's interests.
Working the answers
- A
Irrelevant to any assessment goes too far. A financial interest can be relevant when we assess someone's motives or decide how carefully to scrutinize a claim. The problem is treating that interest as proof that the city is being sacrificed. We can think the interest matters without thinking it settles the dispute.
- BCorrect
The same action can help the mayor personally and help the city. If the fees really would reduce the city's overall revenue, opposing them could benefit both. The council member treats those interests as though advancing one must come at the expense of the other, without answering the mayor's explanation of why they might align.
- C
Establishing that the council member has no personal stake wouldn't make this reasoning sound. An unbiased council member could still wrongly infer that benefiting the mayor must harm the city. And discovering a council member's stake would simply raise another question about motives. Neither tells us whether the mayor's revenue argument is correct.
- D
The city needs revenue, but the argument doesn't infer a right to revenue merely from that need. It accuses the mayor of putting personal interests ahead of the city's interests. D answers a different question about what someone is entitled to receive.
- E
How desperately the mayor's family needs money doesn't resolve whether the policy helps or harms the city. Even an urgent personal need would not show that blocking the fees benefits the city; nor would it show the opposite. The missing issue is the effect of the proposed fees, not whose financial need is more intense.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.