#12 - The government has recently adopted a policy

[lathlee]

Hi. Jon,

thx for the kind response, but as I was trying to learn about this unique type of evidence error common error reasoning- relativity flaw, the link is dead; it doesn't provide me any information. haha.

actually nvm, now i see that you gave a different link that shows a different example.

yep, by all means, plz delete that link about buying the new version book post if you find that we should discuss here would be better.

[Jon Denning]

Good stuff!

Like I said, I wouldn't sweat this too much as "an error" per se, but rather an example of how crucial it is to pay attention to the language used, and to possible exceptions that may exist to what an author concludes. Question everything! As Dave points out, noting that the word "higher" (or "more") doesn't have to mean "high" (or "a lot"), any more than saying "less" doesn't have to mean "few" or "little."

These are subtle differences, but they make a world of difference on a test as fine-tuned as the LSAT.

[cgs174]

hi!! I got this right on my timed version but missed it on the blind review. I identified that the error was that just because the information might not be complete, that this does not translate to it not being able to make the public more informed. I also took note of the fact that the stimulus uses the word complete, and not correct, meaning that the content of the reports are true, just not complete.

This narrowed down my options to A and C. I found the use of the word "impossible" in C to be a red flag, but the stimulus says the airlines will be less likely to give reports "if such information will be made available to the public". Does this not imply that it is currently not available to the public, that is impossible for the public to find? Is the problem with C that it doesn't specify for whom it is impossible to to find (ie. it could be impossible for the public but not the non-public)?

Thanks for helping me out!

[Beth Hayden]

Hi CGS,

It's not clear from the stimulus whether the public had access to any information about airline safety statistics before the disclosure policy. Just because something isn't published by the government doesn't mean members of the public are completely in the dark.

There are two possibilities:

1. If you assume that the public knows nothing absent the disclosures, then for the conclusion to make sense we would have to assume that incomplete reports will not be helpful at all. Otherwise, you would think that any information (even if incomplete) is better than nothing
2. Alternatively, maybe the public is able to find information about airline statistics without the disclosures, through some other means. For example, perhaps news organizations put in FOIA requests to get this information and then publish for members of the public. If that's the case then for the conclusion to make sense this disclosure law would need to undermine that process in some way.

Neither of those situations really makes sense here (because it's a flawed argument)! But even if the author does assume that it is impossible for members of the public to access this information without the disclosures, that doesn't fix the argument. We would still be left with the question: isn't some information better than nothing?

Hope that helps!
Beth