PrepTest 155, Section 1, Question 20
Mr. Klemke argues that the complaints recently lodged(57 more words not shown)
The argument against Mr. Klemke's(6 more words not shown)
- Atakes a consequence(11 more words not shown)
- Bconcludes that a(15 more words not shown)
- Crejects an argument(12 more words not shown)
- Drelies on a(11 more words not shown)
- Eoverlooks the possibility(10 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A bad defense doesn't prove that the complaints are valid.
Klemke says the complaints about his roofing company are unfounded because the complainants disagree with his politics. That isn't a good reason to dismiss them. A person can dislike his politics and receive a badly built roof. The two facts can coexist.
So far, the critic is right to push back. But then the critic goes further: the complaints must not be unfounded. Where is the evidence about the roofs or the treatment these customers received?
We still have more than one possibility. Perhaps the company did poor work and the complaints are justified. Or perhaps the work was fine and politically hostile customers made false complaints. Klemke's reason doesn't establish the second story, but pointing out that defect doesn't establish the first story either.
What we’re looking for
The question asks about the argument against Klemke, so don't stop at his original mistake. The critic treats Klemke's inadequate support as proof that his claim is false. We need the answer describing that extra leap.
Working the answers
- A
The critic doesn't reason from a consequence of bias to its cause. We aren't being asked what produced someone's political disagreement or bias. The critic concludes that the complaints have a basis because Klemke's reason for dismissing them fails. A describes a different causal mistake.
- BCorrect
Klemke's claim is that the complaints are unfounded. The critic shows that his political-bias argument doesn't establish that claim, then concludes the claim is false. But an unsupported claim can still be true. We'd need evidence about the company's conduct to decide whether the complaints are justified.
- C
This sounds closer to Klemke's own approach: dismissing complainants because of their supposed bias. But the question asks about the critic's argument against Klemke. The critic doesn't say, 'Klemke has biased political views, so his argument must be wrong.' The critic identifies an inadequate reason and then wrongly takes that as proof of the opposite claim.
- D
There is no attempt to use a sample of political opinions to represent the views of a larger population. We have a dispute over whether particular complaints are justified. Their political diversity wouldn't fix the critic's failure to provide evidence that the company actually mistreated these people.
- E
Whether people know about their political disagreement doesn't settle whether their roofing complaints are founded. Even if everyone were fully aware of the disagreement, Klemke's defense would still be inadequate and the critic would still need evidence about the company's work. This possibility doesn't identify the critic's leap.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.