PrepTest 158, Section 4, Question 18
Lindsey: Several people claim that our company was(53 more words not shown)
The argument is flawed in(2 more words not shown)
- Arelies on the(16 more words not shown)
- Binfers that an(14 more words not shown)
- Cdismisses a claim(14 more words not shown)
- Dconfuses the size(12 more words not shown)
- Eoverlooks the possibility(12 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Maybe the staff deserved bonuses for another reason.
The company promised bonuses if profits increased. Profits fell, so that particular promise didn't require the company to pay. But Lindsey goes further and says the company acted fairly. Have we eliminated every possible basis for the staff's complaint?
Suppose the staff were also promised bonuses for working overtime, and they did that work. A fall in company profits wouldn't erase that separate promise. The employees could have a fair complaint even though the profit-based condition wasn't met.
What we’re looking for
For the flaw question, look for this move: Lindsey knocks out one possible reason for thinking the company was unfair and treats that as enough to reject the opinion altogether. We aren't told what the critics actually based their claim on, much less that the profit promise was their only possible reason.
Working the answers
- A
Lindsey doesn't rely on the unnamed people's opinions. Lindsey argues against their opinion that the company was unfair. We don't need to investigate their credentials to see that one possible reason for their criticism has been treated as the only one.
- BCorrect
The opinion is that withholding bonuses was unfair. The potential reason Lindsey addresses is the company's promise of bonuses if profits increased. Showing that profits didn't increase undermines that reason, but it doesn't address other possible grounds for the opinion.
Our overtime example makes the gap concrete. The profit condition can be unmet while a separate obligation to the workers still exists. Rejecting one reason doesn't establish that the company's decision was fair in every relevant respect.
- C
Lindsey doesn't point to any personal trait of the critics and dismiss them because of it. Saying the staff are too young to understand business would be that kind of attack. Here, the response concerns the company's profit and its promise, not the critics' characteristics.
- D
A smaller increase is different from an actual decrease, but Lindsey hasn't confused them. Suppose profits rise from $100,000 to $150,000, then to $175,000. The second increase is smaller—$25,000 rather than $50,000—but profits still rose.
That's different from profits falling from $150,000 to $125,000. The passage describes lower profits this year, which is a decrease, not merely a smaller increase. D names a possible numerical mistake that isn't the mistake made here.
- E
Lindsey concludes that withholding bonuses was fair. The reasoning doesn't require every fair policy to be generous. The missing consideration is another possible reason bonuses were owed, not a general relationship between fairness and generosity.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.