PrepTest 133, Section 3, Question 14
Council member: I recommend that the abandoned shoe(39 more words not shown)
A questionable technique used in(7 more words not shown)
- Aasserting that a(13 more words not shown)
- Baccepting a claim(13 more words not shown)
- Cattacking the proponents(8 more words not shown)
- Dattempting to persuade(7 more words not shown)
- Eattacking an argument(9 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
You haven't shown that the shoe factory is a good shelter either.
Does it have power? Is the building safe? The council member recommends it, but gives us no information answering those basic questions. Instead, the argument points out that supporters of the courthouse haven't supplied evidence for their preference.
That's a problem for their case. It isn't evidence for yours. The courthouse could really be better even if its supporters have defended it poorly. Or the buildings could be equally suitable, or both unsuitable. An unsupported rival claim doesn't settle the actual comparison.
What we’re looking for
So the questionable move is accepting the shoe-factory claim because the courthouse advocates haven't adequately supported theirs. Keep track of whose position lacks support: the argument attacks the case for the courthouse, then acts as though that establishes the case for the factory.
Working the answers
- A
This is close enough to deserve careful attention. A describes saying, “Nobody has supplied evidence against using the shoe factory, so using it must be right.” That would be a lack of criticism treated as proof.
Here, the council member points to the absence of evidence supporting the rival recommendation: “They haven't shown the courthouse is better, so the factory is better.” Both moves misuse a gap in evidence, but the argument specifically concerns the opponents' failure to defend their position. B describes that move more precisely.
- BCorrect
The accepted claim is that the factory would be better. The opposing claim is that the courthouse would be better. The only offered reason to accept the first is that the advocates of the second haven't backed it up. We still have no positive reason to choose the factory; a weak presentation of the rival case doesn't make our case strong.
- C
The speaker criticizes the courthouse advocates' lack of evidence, not their character. There is no accusation that they are dishonest, selfish, or otherwise bad people. A criticism of how well a view is supported is different from a personal attack on the people holding it.
- D
Mentioning an emergency shelter doesn't by itself appeal to fear. The speaker doesn't try to frighten the council into agreement with a prediction of disaster. The stated reason for choosing the factory is the rival side's unsupported claim.
- E
The passage explicitly says some council members favor the courthouse. Their position is real within the argument. The mistake is treating their failure to support it as proof of the competing position, not inventing opponents who don't exist.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.