PrepTest 144, Section 2, Question 19
Politician: Union leaders argue that increases in multinational(52 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the politician's(7 more words not shown)
- Atreats the mere(21 more words not shown)
- Bpresumes, without providing(17 more words not shown)
- Ctreats circumstances potentially(12 more words not shown)
- Dpresumes, without providing(15 more words not shown)
- Epresumes, without providing(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Wanting higher wages doesn't make someone wrong about what lowers wages.
The union leaders have an interest in keeping pay high. That could affect what they argue for, but they might also be right: perhaps moving manufacturing to countries with weaker worker protections really has reduced average wages. Their motive and the accuracy of that claim can coexist.
What we’re looking for
The politician never tests the wage claim. Instead, the politician points to the leaders' interest and tells legislators to reject their argument. For the flaw question, I want that jump from a possible source of bias to a reason to dismiss the argument itself.
Working the answers
- A
The politician attacks this argument based on the leaders' interest in high wages. A goes further: it says mere union membership discredits all viewpoints expressed by the members. The politician doesn't claim these people are wrong about everything, and the stated concern is more specific than simply belonging to a union.
- B
This expands the criticism to anyone whose political motives can be identified. The politician addresses these union leaders and their interest in the wage issue. We don't need to attribute a universal rule about every politically motivated source to identify what went wrong in this particular dismissal.
- CCorrect
The leaders' interest in high wages is a circumstance that might affect their argument. The politician treats that circumstance as enough to discredit the argument. But people can have a stake in a claim and still support it with accurate evidence. We need to evaluate what they say, not stop after identifying why they want legislators to listen.
- D
The union leaders could have several other arguments for opposing multinational control. The politician could still dismiss this one on the same grounds. Nothing in the reasoning requires it to be their only argument.
- E
The politician doesn't need every union's leaders to oppose multinational manufacturing. Some other union might take no position or favor it. The argument addresses the leaders who made the wage claim, so an assumption about all unions would extend beyond its scope.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.