PrepTest 154, Section 2, Question 12
Bauer: It is a mistake to criticize the(25 more words not shown)
The reasoning in Bauer’s argument(11 more words not shown)
- Amisrepresents a criticism(16 more words not shown)
- Btakes for granted(13 more words not shown)
- Ctakes for granted(17 more words not shown)
- Dconfuses the cause(10 more words not shown)
- Edefends the current(10 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Asking the city to ease up isn't asking it to stop enforcing parking rules.
Imagine an officer waiting beside a meter and issuing a ticket thirty seconds after it expires. Someone could object to that approach while still wanting rules enforced against cars left illegally for long periods. We don't have to settle the ideal amount of leniency to recognize those as different positions.
Bauer answers the complaint about excessive ticketing by asking us to imagine no enforcement at all. Sure, that could make parking worse. But it doesn't show that the current level of enforcement is reasonable. There is room between issuing tickets too aggressively and abandoning the rules.
What we’re looking for
For the flaw question, I'd look for an answer describing that switch. Bauer defends the current practice against a much more extreme alternative than the criticism calls for. Defeating that alternative doesn't answer the actual concern about going too far.
Working the answers
- A
This describes a switch between consequences and a practice's value in itself. Bauer doesn't make that distinction. The response concerns how bad parking would become without enforcement, which is itself a consequence. The actual switch is from less aggressive enforcement to no enforcement.
- B
Bauer doesn't say that the city deserves obedience simply because it has authority. That argument would be something like, “Respect the rule because an official issued it.” Instead, Bauer points to the supposedly worse parking situation without enforcement. The existence of an authority in the background doesn't make authority the reason given.
- C
Nothing here says the practice is good because it has a long history. Bauer doesn't argue that the city has always issued tickets this way and should therefore continue. The defense rests on a comparison with no enforcement, not on tradition.
- D
Bauer suggests that failing to enforce rules would worsen parking. But there isn't a reversal in which a result is mistaken for its cause. The problem is the choice of comparison: a terrible alternative is being used to avoid addressing a reasonable criticism of the current practice.
- ECorrect
The current situation is aggressive ticketing. The implausible alternative is abandoning enforcement altogether, which isn't what the criticism requests. Saying the current approach is better than that extreme doesn't establish that it isn't overzealous. Moderate enforcement could avoid both problems, and Bauer's response never addresses that possibility.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.