#23 - An independent audit found no indication of tax

[Dave Killoran]

Complete Question Explanation

Parallel Flaw. The correct answer choice is (E)

Approach the question from the following perspective:

• Imagine for a moment that when you first read the stimulus you were completely lost. Nothing in the argument stood out, and although you recognized the premise and conclusion, you did not feel that either was notable.

First, take the “action” of the stimulus and turn it into a generalized summary. Following is the stimulus and then an abstraction of that stimulus:

• Stimulus: “An independent audit found no indication of tax avoidance on the part of the firm in the firm’s accounts; therefore, no such problem exists.”
  
  Abstraction: “Since they looked and didn’t find anything, it doesn’t exist.”

Remember, our abstraction does not have to be perfect—it simply needs to be a reasonable description of what occurred in the stimulus. If we can only eliminate three of the answer choices by applying the abstraction, then we can refine our description until one of the remaining answers is eliminated.

Answer choice (A): Does this answer match our short description of the stimulus? No, this answer is about “no changes from the past translate into no changes in the future.” There is no element of “searching and not finding.”

Answer choice (B): Again, quickly, does this answer match our short description of the stimulus? No, this answer is about cost overruns on projects.

Answer choice (C): This answer is superior to answers (A) and (B). The first lines indicate that essays on current events are missing from a compilation of the best essays. This knowledge implies a search has taken place and no essay fitting the description was found. So far, so good. The conclusion, however, fails to match what we are seeking. Based on the premise in this answer choice, we need a conclusion that states something to the effect of, “therefore no such student essay on current events exists.” Instead, we get an entirely different type of conclusion: “therefore, students have become apathetic toward current events.” Since this conclusion fails to match our abstract description of the stimulus, this answer is incorrect.

Answer choice (D): This answer has an element that is similar to the stimulus, but in the final analysis it fails to match our abstract description. First, just like the stimulus, the answer contains a search (the “survey”). However, the search in the stimulus did not turn up anything whereas the search in answer choice (D) turns up results (“no school without a need” is the same as “every school has a need”). Most damning, however, is that the conclusion of the answer choice does not have the same abstract form as the conclusion in the stimulus. Since the general intent and execution of this answer does not match our abstraction, this answer is incorrect.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. First, let’s revisit our general description of the stimulus:

     “Since they looked and didn’t find anything, it doesn’t exist.”

          Now, compare that to the answer choice:

               “An examination of the index of the book found no listing for the
               most prominent critic of the theory the book advocates; therefore,
               the book fails to refer to that critic.”

A search was conducted but no results were found, and on that basis a conclusion is drawn that no such thing exists. This perfectly matches our description, and this answer is correct.

[margidag]

Can you help me understand why A is wrong and why E is correct?

I originally understood the flaw in the stimulus to be that the author was taking absence of evidence of tax avoidance to be proof that there was no tax avoidance. However, now that I know E is correct, I am guessing that "in the firm's accounts" played some role that I did not consider. Can you help?

[Paul Marsh]

Hi margidag!

I originally understood the flaw in the stimulus to be that the author was taking absence of evidence of tax avoidance to be proof that there was no tax avoidance.

Your original understanding was exactly right! The stimulus tells us that there's no evidence in the accounts of the firm avoiding taxes, and so the argument concludes that the firm never avoided taxes. The Flaw in the stimulus could be summed up to say, "Takes lack of evidence of an event in a summary of events to be proof that the event never occurred". We call this an "Error in the use of evidence".

Answer Choice (E) uses this same flaw. The index is sort of a summary of events, just like an account. There's no evidence in the index of the critic being mentioned, and so the argument concludes that the critic was never mentioned. So (E) also takes a lack of evidence of an event in a summary of events to be proof that the event never occurred.

The argument in Answer Choice (A), on the other hand, is flawed because it employs what we would call a Time Shift error. Time Shift errors are explained nicely on this PowerScore blog post:

https://blog.powerscore.com/lsat/bid-29 ... ft-errors/

So while (A) is flawed, it uses the wrong Flaw. It mistakenly uses a Time Shift error, not an Error in the Use of Evidence like our stimulus and (E) did. Hope that helps!

[gwlsathelp]

Hello! This is question number 4 found on page 562 of the 2020 LRB, which states :

An independent audit found no indication of tax avoidance on the part of the firm in the firm's accounts; therefore, no such problem exists.

Understandably, this is the section titled "What To Do If All Else Fails" and the surrounding text goes into depth about that method; however, I would like to know what questionable reasoning is employed in this stimulus and which LSAT it comes from – would this be an issue of making an overly broad conclusion from a single instance?

Thank you for your responses.

[Stephanie Oswalt]

however, I would like to know ... which LSAT it comes from

Hi gwlsathelp!

This is from the October 1997 LSAT. I have moved your post over to the thread discussing this question.

Thanks!

[KelseyWoods]

Hi gwlsathelp!

This is one of the classic errors in the use of evidence. The argument is basically that we have no evidence that this thing exists, so therefore it must not exist. But a lack of evidence is not proof of anything. Just because we don't have evidence that a thing exists, does not actually prove that it does not exist.

An example we use in our courses: "The White House has given no indication that it has reached a trade agreement with China. Therefore, no such agreement exists." Again, just because we don't have evidence of a trade agreement, that does not prove that it does not exist.

Errors in the use of evidence can be kind of tricky to spot. The important thing to remember is that a lack of evidence cannot definitively prove anything. The argument would be better if instead the conclusion said "therefore, it is unlikely that such a problem exists." It's much more difficult to prove a definitive statement like "does not exist" then it is to prove a probably statement like "probably does not exist."

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[HarmonRabb]

Hi,
I could use some help understanding the correct answer choice for the example question 4 in this chapter (2024 edition pg 560 about independent audit finding no tax avoidance and concluding that none exists)

When I read the stimulus, I thought the audit not finding any proof of tax avoidance is not sufficient proof that no tax avoidance exists. I see this same reasoning in answer A ... the plan being unmodified so far is not sufficient proof it will be unmodified in the future.

I went here before trying to abstract the argument.

Where did I go wrong?

Thanks

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi Harmon,

Think about the time frame in the stimulus. X wasn't found therefore X doesn't exist is a current argument. X isn't the case now therefore X will never be the case in the future is a different sort of argument. It's primarily flawed due to the time shift, and that is not a problem in our stimulus.

The error in the stimulus is "we didn't see it so it doesn't exist." That's an error in evidence---just because we don't find evidence of X doesn't mean that X isn't happening. In the stimulus, the issue is finding tax avoidance. In the correct answer, the issue is finding a particular critic in a book. In both cases, the error assumes that looking through a portion of the available information (just the firm's accounts or just the index) is sufficient to rule out any information contrary exists.

Hope that helps!

[HarmonRabb]

Thanks! Appreciate the detail.

[victoria1234]

Then can we accuse the original argument committing Untrue VS Unproven Flaw?