PrepTest 125, Section 2, Question 5
Byrne: One of our club's bylaws specifies that(57 more words not shown)
The reasoning in Byrne's argument(6 more words not shown)
- Afails to consider(14 more words not shown)
- Bpresumes, without providing(20 more words not shown)
- Ctakes for granted(15 more words not shown)
- Dfails to specify(13 more words not shown)
- Edoes not specify(7 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Maybe Thibodeaux was suspended for bad behavior.
The bylaw gives us two ways to guarantee a suspension: arrive late to a quarterly board meeting, or miss two monthly general meetings. Fine. But nobody said those are the only ways. Sending an inappropriate email, for example, could be another reason the club suspends an officer.
Now Byrne tells us that Thibodeaux was suspended but never missed a monthly meeting. That removes one of the listed routes. It doesn't establish the other route unless the list is complete. Thibodeaux could have attended every meeting on time and still done something else that got him suspended.
What we’re looking for
The flaw question asks us to name that mistake. I'd put it simply: Byrne treats two guaranteed ways to get suspended as the only possible ways. We need an answer that allows for other reasons for the same outcome.
Working the answers
- A
Arriving late to a monthly meeting isn't the same as missing it. The stated rule makes lateness matter for quarterly board meetings and absence matter for monthly general meetings. A mixes those conditions. We aren't given a rule saying that being late to two monthly meetings triggers suspension.
- BCorrect
The 'certain events' are the two attendance violations, and the 'particular result' is suspension. Byrne assumes no other event could produce that result. But another event, such as misconduct, could get an officer suspended too. That possibility blocks the attempt to identify which attendance violation Thibodeaux committed.
- C
This describes taking something that is required and treating it as enough by itself. Byrne makes the mistake in the other direction. Each listed attendance violation is enough for suspension; Byrne treats committing one of those violations as a requirement for being suspended. The club never gave us that requirement.
- D
It doesn't matter whether the club counts thirty seconds or five minutes as late. Either policy could coexist with other grounds for suspension. Defining the cutoff more precisely wouldn't show that Thibodeaux violated it.
- E
How long Thibodeaux has held the position doesn't settle why he was suspended. Whether he has been an officer for a month or several years, the two stated attendance violations still needn't be the only grounds for suspension.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.