to the top

#14 - Activist: Although the environmental bill before the

LSAT Master
Posts: 277
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 10:11 pm
Points: 218

How do you know A isn't a flaw? I was between A and C & ultimately chose C, but A seems it could be just as much as a flaw. The activist clearly uses that reasoning (other great leaders do this thing) as support for her conclusion/recommendation, but it's not really justified. It kind of comes out of nowhere. So I think it could be a flaw too. Thanks!
LSAT Leader
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2017 9:12 pm
Points: 33

Hello PowerScore,

I wanted to follow up on the question posted above. I find myself in the same situation (between A and C). I would like to know what the thought process for eliminating A is.

Thank you!
Luke Haqq
PowerScore Staff
PowerScore Staff
Posts: 183
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2012 2:28 pm
Points: 143

Hi AnnBar and avengingangel,

Answer (A) states that the argument " presumes, without providing justification, that most of the legislators are great leaders." It doesn't seem to me that the argument takes legislators to be great leaders. Rather, the argument recommends that they ought to be like great leaders. The language is: "Great leaders have the courage to look beyond popularity to what is sound policy; legislators ought to do the same by not voting for this bill." The first clause before the semicolon is a premise. The rest of it is the conclusion of the argument. The argument is saying legislators should not vote for the environmental policy bill because it is a popular bill, and because great leaders make sound policy choices rather than doing what is popular.

Answer (C)--which states that the argument "fails to consider whether there are noneconomic reasons for supporting the bill that outweigh the reason given for rejecting it"--takes issue with the fact that the argument considers the negative economic consequences to be the only relevant policy issue. In other words, (C) is saying it's possible that "sound policy" can include noneconomic factors (e.g., maybe sometimes sound policy includes doing what is popular, even if it is not economically efficient), but the argument fails to take this into account.
LSAT Apprentice
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2017 5:03 am
Points: 10

You can post any specific questions about test 39, section 2, number 14 on this page. I am not sure where you see an analogy drawn in this stimulus, but please post any questions you have to the paged in the link provided.


I would humbly like to follow up this question:

I can break it down as follows:

P: The bill has negative economic consequences

C: Legislators should reject it

Here it drops a hint of flaw/assumption: economic consequences plays a major role in bill readings, otherwise it is very weak to support the conclusion legislator should reject it

But it is sufficient from here to arrive at the solution: A B D E are quite far away from touching this quite fatal assumption. Yet C pretty much states it: No, there are some relevant concerns more than economic consequences the stimuli ignore for the legislators with which to judge whether they should vote for or against the bill.

However, I have a problem with the rest part concerning the popularity. I did not understand why they were put in the whole stimuli because they were quite irrelevant to the stimuli--at least to it was.

then I revised the analysis into this way:

P: The bill has negative economic consequences

Counter-Premise: The bill is popular. However, from this point to counter the conclusion, it quite requires an assumption: the legislator should vote for a popular bill. But then the stimuli used an analogy to refute the counter-premise:

Great leaders dare not to vote for a popular bill. well, it then requires an assumption: legislators should try to follow what great leaders do. Yet long in short, this part is not so closely connected to the reasoning of the stimuli. If so, it might be a reminder that there are noneconomic factors that can affect the decision of legislators. And besides, the stimuli does not presume legislators are great leaders, it just presumes an analogy that greater leaders and legislators might do the same thing: go beyond the popularity and vote for the truth
PowerScore Staff
PowerScore Staff
Posts: 271
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2017 11:32 am
Points: 267

Hi mcwood,
These are some great observations! Thanks so much. :-D