PrepTest 143, Section 4, Question 15
Legislator: My staff conducted a poll in which(32 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the legislator's(12 more words not shown)
- Afails to establish(19 more words not shown)
- Bfails to consider(13 more words not shown)
- Cconfuses an absence(21 more words not shown)
- Ddraws a conclusion(11 more words not shown)
- Etreats a result(21 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What did the constituents think “high taxes” meant?
Someone might answer “no” while thinking about the taxes they personally pay. That doesn't tell us how the person feels about a corporation's tax bill. The person might also be willing to pay more for services they value. A broad question about disliking high taxes leaves a lot of those details open.
The legislator jumps from that broad response to support for a specific corporate-tax bill. That's where I pause. Even a poll with 97 percent agreement only answers the question people were asked. It doesn't automatically answer a different question about this proposal.
What we’re looking for
For the flaw, I'd look for the missing connection between the poll's general wording and the particular tax the bill would reduce.
Working the answers
- A
The legislator's conclusion is about the legislator's own constituents, the same group that was polled. There is no jump to the whole country's opinion. The problem is applying their response to a different issue, not applying it to a different population.
- BCorrect
Do the constituents even regard the current corporate income tax as high? If they think it is already low or reasonable, disliking high taxes gives them no reason to support reducing this one.
My initial concern was that people might be thinking about their own taxes rather than corporations' taxes. B identifies a precise version of the missing connection: the poll only addresses high taxes, and we haven't established that constituents put this tax in that category. The general dislike therefore doesn't establish support for the bill.
- C
That would be an argument like, “Nobody called to oppose my bill, so everyone must support it.” Silence could simply mean people haven't heard about the proposal. But this legislator does have evidence: the poll. The problem is what the poll establishes, not the complete absence of evidence being treated as support.
- D
The conclusion doesn't merely repeat the premise. Disliking high taxes and supporting this corporate-tax reduction are different claims. In fact, the gap between those claims is exactly why the argument fails. The poll result isn't just another way to state support for the bill.
- E
This gets the mistake backward. It says the evidence proves support and the legislator treats it as merely compatible with support. The legislator actually treats a limited poll result as establishing support that it doesn't prove. We never receive a result demonstrating that the public supports this bill.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.