LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

Get expert LSAT preparation and law school admissions advice from PowerScore Test Preparation.

 Administrator
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 8950
  • Joined: Feb 02, 2011
|
#23659
Complete Question Explanation

Flaw in the Reasoning-SN. The correct answer choice is (B)

In this stimulus a classic flaw in conditional reasoning is presented. Diagramming this stimulus makes it very easy to see the error. If the association wants a mayor who attracts more business, it should support Cooper: If MB→C. Since the Association is supporting Cooper, it must want to attract business: C→MB. A classic Mistaken Reversal. Remember, a Flaw question is a type of Must Be True question, so the answer choice must be present in the stimulus.


Answer Choice (A): This answer choice is incorrect because the reasons for attracting more businesses have no importance or influence for this argument.

Answer Choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. Because the argument contains a mistaken reversal, it does not prove its conclusion, that the Association has the goal of more businesses. This answer choice demonstrates that flaw; there could be other reasons for their support based on this faulty reasoning.

Answer Choice (C): This answer choice is incorrect because it brings up an idea not present in the stimulus. Any Flaw answer must be true based only on the stimulus and this stimulus contains nothing about "other groups."

Answer Choice (D): This answer choice is incorrect because it also introduces an idea not present in the stimulus. The "best interest" of the members of the Homeowners' Association is outside the scope of this argument.

Answer Choice (E): This answer choice is incorrect because it also introduces a element outside the scope of the argument: Cooper's skills. Whether or not he has these skills is not a part of the argument, and, therefore, cannot be a flaw in the reasoning.
 nickp18
  • Posts: 20
  • Joined: May 26, 2020
|
#95809
Hi PS,

I got this question correct, but without using conditional reasoning, so I was wondering if you could provide a little clarity. I just naturally assumed there might be another reason why Cooper is being supported. Why does the mistaken reversal end up disproving the conclusion and how does that make B the correct answer?

Thanks,

Nick
User avatar
 katehos
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 184
  • Joined: Mar 31, 2022
|
#95896
Hi Nick!

The formal, conditional phrase that refers to the same line of logic you mentioned (that being that there very well could be another reason the Association is supporting Cooper) is a Mistaken Reversal!

We can see this when we diagram the conditionals in the stimulus. Looking at the second sentence, we spot the word "if", which is an indicator of a sufficient condition. So, we diagram the second sentence to be:

Association Wants Mayor Who Attracts Business :arrow: Support Cooper

The conclusion is then:

Support Cooper :arrow: Association Wants Mayor Who Attracts Business

You can see here that this is a Mistaken Reversal in which the author clearly flips the sufficient and necessary conditions, without negating them! The author improperly asserts that supporting Cooper means that HOA must have a goal of attracting businesses. Thus, we have found the flaw in reasoning (or the reason why the conclusion is not a valid conclusion given the premises).

Answer choice (B) captures the same flaw as above, it's just phrased differently. (B) states that the HOA could be supporting the candidacy for other reasons, which is very true! We know that it is a mistake to conclude that the supporting Cooper necessitates the goal of attracting more businesses to town -- there could be other reasons!

I hope this helps :)
Kate

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

Analyze and track your performance with our Testing and Analytics Package.