PrepTest 123, Section 2, Question 20
Gamba: Muñoz claims that the Southwest Hopeville Neighbors(70 more words not shown)
Of the following, which one(7 more words not shown)
- Aquestioning a conclusion(20 more words not shown)
- Bquestioning a claim(21 more words not shown)
- Cattempting to refute(24 more words not shown)
- Dcriticizing a view(17 more words not shown)
- Eattempting to cast(22 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
How much of the city does this neighborhood association speak for? Even if the whole association opposed the water system, I would want to know whether its residents had the same concerns as everyone else in Hopeville. One neighborhood could be richer, poorer, or affected differently by the plan.
Then Gamba gives us an even more immediate problem: only 25 of the association's 350 members voted. And ten of those voters favored the system. That leaves just fifteen opposing votes behind the claim of overwhelming opposition.
So we're not even hearing from most of this association, much less most of the city. Gamba points out that the fifteen opponents are far less than one percent of Hopeville's population. I'm willing to accept that those fifteen people object. Why should I take them as dependable evidence of how the city as a whole feels?
What we’re looking for
The question asks how Gamba argues. We don't need to invent a new objection. Gamba challenges the size of the group being used to support the citywide claim: too few votes to rely on for that broad conclusion. That's what I want the answer to say.
Working the answers
- A
It could be true that opponents were more motivated to show up than supporters. But Gamba doesn't make that claim. The stated objection is about how few people voted, not about how a particular view affected the likelihood of voting. We need the argument Gamba actually gives.
- B
Gamba doesn't accuse anyone of manipulating the numbers to get a desired result, much less claim that statistics can be manipulated to support any view. The numbers are accepted. What Gamba challenges is how much we can infer from so few opposing votes.
- C
This is tempting if we reduce the response to “the evidence doesn't prove the conclusion.” But read the extra claim: someone supposedly said the premises guarantee the conclusion, and Gamba shows that guarantee fails. Munoz has cited the vote as evidence of citywide opposition; we aren't told that Munoz claimed logical certainty.
Gamba's stated objection is more specific: this tiny sample isn't dependable support for the broader claim. E describes that statistical objection directly, without adding a claim about a guarantee.
- D
Nothing here says the evidence is impossible to disconfirm. We could investigate how the vote happened or gather more information about residents' views. Gamba's point is that the existing group is too small to support the conclusion reliably, not that testing the evidence is impossible.
- ECorrect
The conclusion concerns citywide opposition, but the opposing votes come from only fifteen people. Gamba emphasizes how few of the association's members voted and how small the opposing group is relative to the city's population. Those details support the objection that the sample is too small to be dependable. That's the strategy described here.
More Strategy of Argument questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strategy of Argument questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.