PrepTest 129, Section 3, Question 2
Politician: Most of those at the meeting were(41 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(7 more words not shown)
- AIt concludes that(22 more words not shown)
- BIt relies on(7 more words not shown)
- CIt rejects an(20 more words not shown)
- DIt rejects a(14 more words not shown)
- EIt rejects an(10 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Kuyler's company has government contracts. Does that tell us whether Kuyler has a good argument against entering those contracts?
The politician wants us to treat the company's conduct as a reason not to be persuaded. I can see why the apparent inconsistency would attract attention: Kuyler argues against something from which the company has benefited. But someone can act inconsistently and still make a good argument.
Maybe Kuyler once approved of those contracts and has since changed position. Maybe Kuyler's role at the company gives Kuyler little control over its contracts. Even if Kuyler personally arranged the contracts and is being hypocritical, we still need to examine the argument. Past conduct does not settle whether its reasoning is sound.
What we’re looking for
The flaw question asks us to describe that mistake: the politician treats inconsistent behavior as a reason to reject the argument. We need an answer about dismissing the reasoning because of the person making it, rather than examining whether that reasoning works.
Working the answers
- A
This misidentifies the politician's reason. The objection is the inconsistency between Kuyler's argument and the company's conduct, not merely the argument's failure to persuade. Also, the passage says most people were not persuaded; it does not say the argument persuaded no one.
- B
The politician is not accepting a witness's account because of that person's supposed credibility. The reasoning dismisses Kuyler's argument because of inconsistent behavior. A problem with relying on biased testimony would be a different mistake.
- CCorrect
The politician rejects the argument on the basis that Kuyler has not acted consistently with it. That apparent hypocrisy does not show what is wrong with the argument itself.
“Merely” fits the role of the evidence here. The report that most listeners were not persuaded describes their reaction. The reason offered for why they should not have been persuaded is the inconsistency. We aren't given an independent examination of Kuyler's premises or reasoning.
- D
This would describe moving from “The argument for this position is inadequate” to “The position must be false.” A position might be true even if someone argues for it badly. Here, however, the politician has not identified inadequate reasoning and used it to disprove the position. The criticism concerns the arguer's behavior.
- E
An appeal to popular opinion would use what most people think as support for rejecting the argument. The politician mentions the audience's reaction but explains why it was appropriate by pointing to Kuyler's apparent inconsistency. E substitutes the audience's opinion for the actual basis of the criticism.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.