PrepTest 152, Section 4, Question 16
Editorial: The main contention of Kramer's book is(59 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the editorial's(7 more words not shown)
- Aconcludes that one(22 more words not shown)
- Bconcludes that a(22 more words not shown)
- Crejects an argument(17 more words not shown)
- Dtakes a sufficient(25 more words not shown)
- Econcludes that a(17 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Do coal companies have a responsibility to invest in other industries? And are the unhappy employees right about what the companies did? Those are questions I'd have about Kramer's case before accepting that it establishes blame for the region's economic difficulties.
The editorial gives us a concrete answer to the second question: the companies did invest heavily in other industries. Accept that fact. It undermines the allegation Kramer relied on, but does it establish that the companies bear no blame for the region's troubles?
What we’re looking for
They might be responsible for some other reason. Imagine they made those investments but also made a different decision that seriously damaged the local economy. That is only a possibility; we haven't proved it happened. It shows why disproving the investment allegation doesn't automatically disprove the broader conclusion about responsibility. For the flaw, I'd look for treating failed support as proof that the supported claim is false.
Working the answers
- A
The editorial doesn't identify another party responsible for the economic difficulties. It points to the coal companies' investments, then rejects Kramer's accusation. An argument saying 'Someone else caused the problem, so the companies didn't' would be different from the one given.
- B
Protecting the industry's reputation isn't the stated reason for rejecting the book's contention. The editorial supplies a fact about actual investments. It doesn't argue that we must reject a damaging statement because accepting it would make an important industry look bad.
- C
Calling the employees disgruntled may make us wonder about their motives, but the editorial doesn't reject their claim merely for that reason. It says they are wrong about the investments because the companies made substantial investments. The mistake comes in what the editorial infers after refuting that supporting claim.
- D
The editorial doesn't confuse a way to establish significant investment with a requirement for significant investment. It accepts the road-building and manufacturing investments as having occurred. The flawed step moves from that fact to rejecting responsibility for economic troubles, not between two directions of an investment rule.
- ECorrect
Showing that Kramer's principal support is inadequate doesn't establish that his conclusion is false. The investments undermine his stated case, but the companies might still bear responsibility on another basis. The editorial can challenge the argument without yet being entitled to dismiss its conclusion as simply false.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.