PrepTest 158, Section 2, Question 2
Council president: Councilmember Smith has proposed a new(39 more words not shown)
The council president's reasoning is(10 more words not shown)
- Adismisses the proposed(11 more words not shown)
- Btakes a single(16 more words not shown)
- Cfails to make(13 more words not shown)
- Ddraws a conclusion(11 more words not shown)
- Egeneralizes from a(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why can't Smith have changed his mind?
Four years ago, his store used bait-and-switch tactics. Now he wants to prohibit them. Maybe he realized those tactics were deceptive and decided to stop other stores from using them too. It's also possible he didn't know everything his employees were doing. The store's history doesn't settle his present motives.
But let's give the president the accusation: suppose Smith really is a hypocrite. Does that make the proposed ban a bad idea? We still haven't heard anything about what the ordinance would do or whether prohibiting bait-and-switch would help people. A hypocrite can propose a sensible law.
Imagine someone advising you to stop smoking and getting the response, “But you smoke.” That may be a fair criticism of the speaker's conduct. It doesn't show that the advice is bad. Here, the president makes the same kind of detour: criticize Smith, then dismiss Smith's proposal.
What we’re looking for
The question asks what is wrong with that reasoning. Look for an answer saying the president attacks the person behind the ordinance instead of addressing the ordinance. We don't need a technical label. We need to keep the person and the proposal separate.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Smith is the source; the proposed ban is the content. The president gives us a reason to question Smith's consistency, then treats that as a reason to refuse even to consider his ordinance. Nothing in the attack shows that banning bait-and-switch would be a bad policy.
- B
What fact contradicts what claim? Smith's store having used bait-and-switch doesn't contradict the claim that the practice should now be banned. Both can be true. B describes a conflict between a fact and a claim, while the president points to Smith's conduct. If an abstract answer sounds confusing, ask what each part would refer to in this argument.
- C
Smith proposes banning a particular sales tactic, not every way of increasing sales. We don't need a general distinction between deceptive and legitimate sales methods to identify the president's mistake. The president hasn't evaluated either kind of method; the attack concerns Smith.
- D
The president doesn't simply repeat the conclusion as its own support. That would look like, “The ordinance deserves no consideration because we shouldn't consider it.” Instead, the president offers Smith's past conduct as a reason to dismiss the ordinance. It's a poor reason, but it is a different claim.
- E
The president dismisses this particular ordinance. There is no move from a few cases to every case of a kind. An argument rejecting all of Smith's proposals because of one example would raise a different concern. That broader conclusion isn't here.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.