- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8950
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Tue May 17, 2016 3:21 pm
#24997
Complete Question Explanation
Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (E)
Politics and political behavior are favorite topics on the LSAT. This stimulus contains an argument against Sigerson’s position on political donations. The author of the stimulus states that although Sigerson wants the city to create ethical guidelines that prohibit politicians from accepting contributions from companies that do business with the city, his position should be ignored as his own behavior does not comply with the proposed guidelines. The author accuses Sigerson of being dishonest by suggesting the proposal as even though in the past, he had accepted contributions from companies that did business with the city. The author attack Sigerson’s character, despite the fact that at the time he engaged in the behavior it almost certainly was not prohibited by the ethical guidelines, since Sigerson is proposing it as a new guideline. The conclusion of the argument, that Sigerson is dishonest, does not then follow from the fact that he engaged in a behavior that was not considered unethical at the time.
Answer choice (A): This answer choice tempts students with conditional reasoning. The test makers know that students are more aware of conditional concepts, and they will frequently put a conditional reasoning answer choice in to tempt those who are rushing. Since the stimulus contained no conditional reasoning, this answer choice which describes a Mistaken Reversal cannot be correct.
Answer choice (B): The author does not delve into the arguments for or against the proposal to create the new ethical guidelines. In fact, the conclusion of the argument is about Sigerson, and not about the merits of his proposal.
Answer choice (C): The stimulus does not need to address how other politicians would react in order to draw a conclusion about Sigerson’s possible hypocritical behavior. As with answer choice (B), this answer choice assumes that the conclusion of the argument is related to the merits of the proposal itself, rather than the behavior of Sigerson. These two incorrect answer choices further emphasize the importance of identifying the conclusion in every possible stimulus in order to avoid being tempted by answer choices that do not actually address the argument in the stimulus.
Answer choice (D): If anything, the author thinks Sigerson is a bit too familiar with the issues involved in taking contributions from those who do business with the city. Not only does Sigerson seem aware of the issues in the abstract sense, but since he has actually engaged in the described behavior, he likely understands the potential conflicts that can arise.
Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. Though in the past, Sigerson has accepted contributions from those who do business with the city, there is nothing suggesting that he would do so if it was against an ethical guideline. Therefore, the conclusion that he is dishonest for his behavior is flawed as it improperly implies that he was engaging in prohibited behavior at the time he engaged in it.
Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (E)
Politics and political behavior are favorite topics on the LSAT. This stimulus contains an argument against Sigerson’s position on political donations. The author of the stimulus states that although Sigerson wants the city to create ethical guidelines that prohibit politicians from accepting contributions from companies that do business with the city, his position should be ignored as his own behavior does not comply with the proposed guidelines. The author accuses Sigerson of being dishonest by suggesting the proposal as even though in the past, he had accepted contributions from companies that did business with the city. The author attack Sigerson’s character, despite the fact that at the time he engaged in the behavior it almost certainly was not prohibited by the ethical guidelines, since Sigerson is proposing it as a new guideline. The conclusion of the argument, that Sigerson is dishonest, does not then follow from the fact that he engaged in a behavior that was not considered unethical at the time.
Answer choice (A): This answer choice tempts students with conditional reasoning. The test makers know that students are more aware of conditional concepts, and they will frequently put a conditional reasoning answer choice in to tempt those who are rushing. Since the stimulus contained no conditional reasoning, this answer choice which describes a Mistaken Reversal cannot be correct.
Answer choice (B): The author does not delve into the arguments for or against the proposal to create the new ethical guidelines. In fact, the conclusion of the argument is about Sigerson, and not about the merits of his proposal.
Answer choice (C): The stimulus does not need to address how other politicians would react in order to draw a conclusion about Sigerson’s possible hypocritical behavior. As with answer choice (B), this answer choice assumes that the conclusion of the argument is related to the merits of the proposal itself, rather than the behavior of Sigerson. These two incorrect answer choices further emphasize the importance of identifying the conclusion in every possible stimulus in order to avoid being tempted by answer choices that do not actually address the argument in the stimulus.
Answer choice (D): If anything, the author thinks Sigerson is a bit too familiar with the issues involved in taking contributions from those who do business with the city. Not only does Sigerson seem aware of the issues in the abstract sense, but since he has actually engaged in the described behavior, he likely understands the potential conflicts that can arise.
Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. Though in the past, Sigerson has accepted contributions from those who do business with the city, there is nothing suggesting that he would do so if it was against an ethical guideline. Therefore, the conclusion that he is dishonest for his behavior is flawed as it improperly implies that he was engaging in prohibited behavior at the time he engaged in it.