PrepTest 151, Section 4, Question 13
Legislator: My colleague says we should reject this(51 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the legislator's(10 more words not shown)
- Atreats a personal(17 more words not shown)
- Bfails to address(12 more words not shown)
- Cpresumes, without providing(15 more words not shown)
- Dpresumes, without providing(9 more words not shown)
- Efails to consider(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Maybe the two bills are different.
Supporting one act that discourages investment doesn't force the colleague to support every act with that effect. Imagine the earlier bill imposed a tiny investment cost while protecting an endangered species, whereas this bill imposes a much larger cost for little benefit. Those are hypothetical differences, but they show why the voting record doesn't establish dishonesty.
What we’re looking for
She could also have changed her mind. Either way, the legislator jumps from her past vote to a hidden motive, then from the supposedly unpersuasive hidden motive to approving the act. Meanwhile, the stated objection is still sitting there: would this act deter investment, and is that a good reason to reject it? For the flaw, I'd focus on the failure to answer her argument. Speculating about her sincerity doesn't settle whether her objection has merit.
Working the answers
- A
The legislator isn't starting with a personal trait and using it to determine the colleague's professional position. We already know her position: she opposes the act. The legislator uses her previous vote to question her stated reason for that opposition. A describes a different inference from the one made here.
- BCorrect
The legislator never addresses the investment concern. Instead, the argument calls the colleague's reason insincere, assumes a hidden reason is weak, and treats that as a reason to approve the act. Even if the colleague were inconsistent or had another motive, the act might still deter investment in a way that justified rejecting it. The merits of that objection remain unanswered.
- C
We aren't told how many legislators agree with the colleague, and the argument doesn't depend on her being in the minority. The same attack on her motives could be made even if most legislators shared her view. Popularity within the legislature isn't the missing support for this reasoning.
- D
The argument doesn't make a prediction about voters' reactions. It concerns what the legislator and colleagues should do about the act. Whether voters oppose investment-deterring legislation doesn't establish that this colleague's stated objection is false or that the act should pass.
- E
Constituents' wishes could help explain the colleague's position, but identifying another possible influence doesn't answer the investment objection either. She could respond to constituents and also sincerely worry about investment. The central problem is treating an attack on her motivation as a reason to approve the act without evaluating the grounds she actually offers.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.