LSAT 143 | Section 1 | Logical Reasoning: Q7

LR Question 7 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Political advertisement: Sherwood campaigns as an…

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

CONCLUSION: Sherwood supports higher taxes.

REASONING: Sherwood was on city council when city council raised taxes.

ANALYSIS: This is a silly argument. The political advertisement ignores an obvious possibility: Sherwood could have voted against the tax increases.

This is a part-to-whole flaw. You can be part of something without sharing all of its properties.

___________

1. Nonsense. There’s no limited sample. The advertisement was considering the council as a whole.
   Example of flaw: Americans are all named Bob. I say this because my Uncle Bob is an American, and he’s named Bob.
2. This is a different flaw.
   Example of flaw: Death must be a good thing, because death is inevitable.
3. This is a different flaw.
   Example of flaw: If Sherwood wins 100% of the votes, he will be elected. So if Sherwood only wins 95% of the votes, he will lose.
4. This describes an ad hominem flaw. That didn’t happen.
   Example of flaw: Sherwood smells bad. Don’t vote for him.
5. CORRECT. The “whole” is city council. It voted for taxes. Sherwood is an individual. He might have voted against taxes. The vote might have passed 13-6, for example.