PrepTest 149, Section 4, Question 11
A group of citizens opposes developing a nearby(50 more words not shown)
The argument above is flawed(3 more words not shown)
- Abases its conclusion(10 more words not shown)
- Billicitly infers that(16 more words not shown)
- Cillicitly assumes as(10 more words not shown)
- Dillicitly infers that(19 more words not shown)
- Eattacks the citizens(11 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A few careless visitors could leave a lot of trash.
Most users may be dedicated hikers who care about the environment. That still leaves room for a minority who don't. Imagine only 5 percent of the visitors repeatedly dropping wrappers and bottles. A trail could have a real litter problem even though the great majority of its users are conscientious. The percentage is hypothetical; the point is that most people caring doesn't establish that nobody will create the problem.
What we’re looking for
For the flaw, that is my first objection to calling the citizens' concern groundless. The author uses the majority's attitude to dismiss a problem that even a small minority could cause.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
The final conclusion is that the trail should be developed, not merely that litter won't be a problem. That reveals another gap beyond my initial objection. Even if we granted that the litter argument was weak, we still wouldn't know that development is a good idea.
Maybe the project would cost too much. Maybe there is a separate safety problem. Defeating one objection doesn't eliminate other objections or supply a positive case for proceeding. A captures the way the author treats a failed argument against the project as sufficient reason to approve it.
- B
The author doesn't assign a feature of every individual user to the trail or to the group as a whole. We are told about most users' environmental concern, then asked to accept a policy conclusion. That isn't an inference that because each person has a property, the collection itself must have that same property.
- C
No premise already says the trail should be developed. The environmental concern of most users is offered as a reason to dismiss the litter objection, and that dismissal is then used to support development. The support is inadequate, but it isn't merely the conclusion repeated as a premise.
- D
The argument begins with a claim about most users. It doesn't observe a few hikers and generalize their attitude to a majority. My first objection concerned what a minority could do despite the stated majority's concern. D describes a different direction of inference.
- E
The author attacks the citizens' litter objection, not their character or motives. Calling the objection groundless is an assessment of its substance, even if poorly supported. E would require a personal attack on the citizens that doesn't occur here.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.