PrepTest 129, Section 1, Question 10
Letter to the editor: Recently, the city council(60 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(9 more words not shown)
- AThe argument ignores(19 more words not shown)
- BThe argument takes(21 more words not shown)
- CThe argument dismisses(12 more words not shown)
- DThe argument takes(18 more words not shown)
- EThe argument treats(21 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Failing to achieve a goal doesn't show that you never had it.
The council says it wants to reduce overcrowding and congestion at the mall. The letter responds that the ordinance won't accomplish those goals, even when fully implemented. Let's accept that prediction. The ordinance could be ineffective while the council sincerely hoped it would help.
Think of an effort to end hunger. A project might fail because supplying and distributing food is harder than its organizers expected. We wouldn't infer just from that failure that feeding people was never their goal. An earnest attempt can be badly designed or unable to overcome the obstacles it faces.
What we’re looking for
The same distinction matters here. Maybe the council has an undisclosed motive, but the letter hasn't established that by showing that its policy won't work. For the flaw question, look for the assumption that an action's intended goal must be something the action actually achieves.
Working the answers
- A
The letter's conclusion concerns whether reducing overcrowding and congestion are genuine goals. Whether the ordinance might achieve other, secondary aims doesn't settle that question. The problem is that failure to achieve the stated aims is treated as proof that they weren't intended in the first place.
- BCorrect
The argument assumes that something can't be the action's goal unless the action will achieve it. That excludes the possibility of a sincere but unsuccessful attempt. The council might genuinely want less congestion while choosing a measure that cannot deliver it.
- C
The writer doesn't reject the council's claim simply because the council is the source. The stated reason is that the ordinance won't accomplish the declared goals. That reason is inadequate evidence about intent, but it isn't an attack based merely on who made the claim.
- D
The letter doesn't conclude that the ordinance has no beneficial effects. It could have some benefit, and the writer could still question the council's actual goals. D replaces the conclusion about intent with a different conclusion about the policy's overall benefits.
- E
This would fit an argument such as: issuing tickets is required to reduce congestion; therefore, issuing tickets guarantees less congestion. Our argument never gives a requirement for achieving the goals and then treats meeting it as enough. It moves from the ordinance's inability to achieve the goals to a claim about what the council intended.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.