PrepTest 140, Section 1, Question 18
Mayor: A huge protest against plans to build(58 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(11 more words not shown)
- AThe argument mischaracterizes(9 more words not shown)
- BThe argument attempts(12 more words not shown)
- CThe argument rejects(14 more words not shown)
- DThe argument generalizes(8 more words not shown)
- EThe argument mistakes(15 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Paid protesters can still be right about a dangerous factory.
The mayor gives us a reason these people showed up: property developers paid them because the developers worried about land values. That might make us question how much genuine public concern the size of the protest represents. It doesn't tell us what chemicals the factory would release or whether those chemicals could harm people.
Imagine the factory really does pose a health risk. The developers could oppose it to protect their property values, hire protesters for that reason, and still have those protesters voice a true concern. Self-interest and accuracy can coexist.
What we’re looking for
That's the flaw to identify. The mayor dismisses the health warning by explaining the protesters' motives, without addressing whether the warning is accurate. We don't have to prove the factory dangerous; we just need to see why being paid doesn't establish that the risk can be dismissed.
Working the answers
- A
Mischaracterizing a view would mean changing what the protesters claim, then attacking that altered version. The mayor reports their health concern and dismisses it because of their motivation. We aren't shown a distortion of the actual claim.
- B
A fear-based appeal might say that rejecting the factory would destroy jobs and leave residents unable to pay their bills. The mayor makes no such threat about rejecting the conclusion. The attack concerns the protesters' reasons for attending.
- CCorrect
The mayor rejects a claim because of the motivation behind making it. Being paid to protest doesn't show that the claimed health danger is false. We would need information about the factory's effects to decide that question.
- D
An unrepresentative-case argument might take a different factory's safety record and assume this factory will be equally safe. The mayor doesn't generalize from a sample of factories or accidents. The stated evidence is about who paid the protesters and why.
- E
The protesters claim the factory could cause health problems. The mayor doesn't treat them as claiming that harm is guaranteed. Instead, the mayor dismisses the possibility on the basis of motives. Turning a possible outcome into an inevitable one isn't the mistake shown here.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.