PrepTest 136, Section 2, Question 21
The mayor was not telling the truth when(39 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the argument(6 more words not shown)
- Ainfers that a(19 more words not shown)
- Bdraws a general(14 more words not shown)
- Cattacks the mayor's(13 more words not shown)
- Dputs forward evidence(14 more words not shown)
- Erejects a position(17 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Was the bridge renovation actually a waste? I'd want to know whether the bridge needed the work and whether the benefit justified the cost. Making a bridge shinier or more useful doesn't automatically make the spending worthwhile.
The author instead points to a report on the larger Southern Tier Project. A commission found that project egregiously wasteful. Even accepting the report, why must this particular renovation share the project's defect?
Imagine a project that wastes a great deal on unnecessary work but also repairs a bridge that genuinely needs repair at a reasonable price. The overall project could be wasteful while the bridge renovation was money well spent. The author hasn't ruled that out.
What we’re looking for
The fact that the mayor created the commission doesn't solve this problem. Creating a commission doesn't necessarily mean endorsing every finding it makes; more importantly, even agreement about the whole project wouldn't establish the verdict on this part. For the flaw answer, follow the change in subject from the project as a whole to the bridge renovation.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
The whole is the Southern Tier Project; the part is the bridge renovation. The author moves from the project's being wasteful to this renovation's being wasteful without separate evidence about the renovation. A worthwhile component can sit inside a wasteful project, so the report doesn't by itself establish that the mayor's specific claim was false.
- B
The conclusion isn't that government spending in general is wasteful. It concerns one bridge renovation. Rather than generalizing from one wasteful instance to government as a whole, the argument transfers a judgment about the larger project to one of its components.
- C
The accusation that the mayor wasn't telling the truth is the conclusion the author tries to establish from the commission's report. The author doesn't start with a bad trait of the mayor and use that trait to dismiss the claim. The offered evidence has a scope problem, not a character-based problem.
- D
The report says the overall project was wasteful; the conclusion concerns the bridge. Those are different claims. The evidence hasn't already assumed the bridge verdict that the author wants to establish. The mistake is assuming the broader verdict carries down to that component.
- E
“Disinterested” here means impartial. The author doesn't reject the mayor's position because of a selfish motive. The reason offered is the commission's finding about the project. Nothing about the mayor's motives fixes the gap between that finding and the bridge-specific conclusion.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.