PrepTest 118, Section 3, Question 6
Editorial: The premier's economic advisor assures her that(66 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(10 more words not shown)
- Arejecting a proposal(14 more words not shown)
- Btrying to win(14 more words not shown)
- Ccriticizing the source(9 more words not shown)
- Dtaking lack of(9 more words not shown)
- Epresupposing what it(4 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
He embezzled money. That doesn't tell us whether the government can cut waste.
The advisor's proposal sounds appealing: reduce taxes without significantly reducing services. Whether it will work depends on how much spending is actually wasteful and what happens if we eliminate it. We haven't been given those details yet.
Instead, the editorial tells us about the advisor's criminal conviction. That may give us a reason to be cautious about the person, but a dishonest person can still make an accurate economic observation. Suppose there really is enough waste to cut taxes while keeping services largely intact. The conviction wouldn't make that waste disappear or make the proposed cuts impossible.
What we’re looking for
For the flawed-strategy question, I'd look for an attack on the person in place of an examination of the proposal. We aren't required to trust the advisor. We need to see that distrusting the advisor hasn't established that the economic goal is hopeless.
Working the answers
- A
A criticism of implementation would concern how the proposed cuts would be made. For example, perhaps cutting a particular department would necessarily eliminate an important service. The editorial doesn't offer that kind of objection. It points to the advisor's character, not a demonstrated problem with carrying out the plan.
- B
The editorial attacks the advisor's proposal; it doesn't seek support for a proposal by describing frightening alternatives. Saying the goal is unattainable because the advisor is untrustworthy is a different strategy from persuading people through fear.
- CCorrect
The source is the advisor, and the criticism is his embezzlement conviction. The claim is that eliminating waste could permit lower taxes without significantly reduced services. The editorial never examines whether that claim is right.
It moves from an objection to the advisor's trustworthiness to rejection of his economic advice. Those can come apart: someone with a bad history could identify a real way to save money. We would need to investigate the proposal to find out.
- D
The editorial doesn't merely say there is no evidence for the proposal and therefore reject it. It gives a specific reason for rejecting it: the advisor's past misconduct. That reason targets the wrong thing, but it isn't simply a lack of evidence being treated as evidence against the claim.
- E
The editorial doesn't assume at the start that taxes cannot be reduced without cutting services and then restate that as its conclusion. It tries to support that conclusion with the conviction. The support is inadequate, but that doesn't make the argument a restatement of its own conclusion.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.