PrepTest 126, Section 4, Question 17
Politician: Some of my opponents have argued on(50 more words not shown)
A reasoning flaw in the(6 more words not shown)
- Adoes not address(7 more words not shown)
- Bmakes an attack(5 more words not shown)
- Ctakes for granted(7 more words not shown)
- Dportrays opponents' views(7 more words not shown)
- Efails to make(6 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What were the opponents' reasons? We still haven't heard an answer to them.
They argued for reducing social spending on theoretical grounds. The politician responds that bureaucracy and self-serving politicians are the main cause of deficit spending. Even if we accept that, it doesn't tell us whether the opponents' argument about social programs is sound. A problem elsewhere in the budget doesn't make every criticism of these programs disappear.
What we’re looking for
The politician then concludes that reducing social spending is unwarranted. That's the step I don't accept. Perhaps the opponents have a good argument; perhaps they don't. The politician has changed the subject before examining it. For the flaw question, I'd look for that failure to engage with the reasons being rejected.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
The opponents' arguments never receive a response. Pointing to another source of deficits doesn't establish that their reasons for reducing social spending are wrong. The politician needs to address those reasons rather than dismissing the recommendation after discussing a different problem.
- B
The unflattering description concerns bureaucrats and self-aggrandizing politicians. The speaker doesn't identify the opponents as that group and then reject their argument because they are bad people. Don't let the insulting language distract us from the actual move: changing subjects instead of answering the opposing case.
- C
A main cause isn't necessarily the only cause. Calling bureaucracy the main source of deficit spending leaves room for other contributions. We can criticize the politician's response without attributing the much stronger claim that deficits have exactly one cause.
- D
We aren't shown the politician making the opponents' view more extreme. The stated position is that social spending should be reduced. The politician doesn't turn that into, for example, a demand to abolish all assistance. Misrepresenting the position would be a different flaw from failing to address it.
- E
A precise definition of excessive spending wouldn't fix this argument. Even if everyone agreed on that definition, the politician would still need to explain why the opponents' reasoning fails. The problem is the unanswered argument, not simply an undefined threshold.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.