PrepTest 145, Section 4, Question 9
Joshi is clearly letting campaign contributions influence his(37 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the argument(11 more words not shown)
- Atakes for granted(13 more words not shown)
- Bconfuses one thing's(14 more words not shown)
- Cmakes a moral(9 more words not shown)
- Dpresumes that one(15 more words not shown)
- Ehas a conclusion(12 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What if developers support Joshi because they like Joshi’s existing votes?
The argument gives us two facts: Joshi receives more financial support from developers than any other councilor, and Joshi’s voting record is the most favorable to them. Those facts fit a story in which the contributions influence Joshi’s votes. But they also fit a different story: Joshi favors development independently, and developers choose to fund someone who already shares their views. In that second story, the policy positions attract the money. The money doesn't produce the positions. Simply putting the contributions next to the voting record doesn't tell us which direction the influence runs.
What we’re looking for
The flaw question should describe that overlooked possibility. The argument treats the contributions as the cause of the favorable votes even though they could be a response to Joshi’s existing record.
Working the answers
- A
We aren't told that the contributions arrived first and that Joshi’s votes changed afterward. The argument relies on the connection between funding and a favorable record, not an established sequence of events. A describes reasoning from an earlier event to a later one that we don't have here.
- B
The argument doesn't identify a required condition and then mistakenly treat meeting it as enough. The problem concerns the direction of influence between contributions and voting behavior. B doesn't describe that problem.
- C
The conclusion is a claim about what influenced Joshi's votes. We might disapprove of that behavior if it occurred, but the argument's central mistake is not merely adding a moral judgment to facts. It has failed to establish the causal story in the first place.
- DCorrect
The contributions might be an effect of Joshi's pro-development record rather than its cause. Developers could look at Joshi’s positions and decide to contribute because they like that existing record. That possibility explains the evidence without establishing that contributions influenced Joshi’s votes.
- E
The evidence says Joshi receives substantial support and has a favorable voting record. The conclusion adds that the support influenced the votes. That added connection isn't already stated in the premises, so this isn't simply a restatement of the conclusion as evidence.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.