LSAT 108 | Section 3 | Logical Reasoning: Q14

LR Question 14 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Wu: Jurgens is dishonest and so should not be …

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Parallel Reasoning

ARGUMENTS: WU’S ARGUMENT: Jurgens shouldn’t be elected mayor, because he’s dishonest.

MILLER’S ARGUMENT: Jurgens should be elected mayor, because honest people usually aren’t tough enough for the job.

ANALYSIS: The issue with Miller is that his support is only negative.

Wu says: This candidate has trait X (dishonesty), so don’t choose him.

Miller responds: People without X (honest people) have a problem too. So choose Jurgens.

But that’s a bad argument. Showing that the alternative might be bad doesn’t show that Jurgens is good enough to choose.

It would be like me saying: “Don’t buy this car because it’s slow.” Then you respond: “Fast cars are often unsafe, so just buy it.” Even if fast cars can be unsafe, that doesn’t make this slow car a good choice.

More generally, the flaw is criticizing the opposite trait and treating that as a reason to make a positive recommendation.

___________

1. CORRECT. This is the same structure. Wu criticizes a trait (slow service), Miller criticizes the opposite trait (quick service) and then makes a positive recommendation. But saying restaurants with fast service may be bad doesn’t show that this restaurant is a good choice.
2. This is a trap. Here, Miller says aggressive people don’t get pushed around. This is different. He’s directly arguing that the very trait Wu criticized (aggressiveness) is actually a benefit.
    
   In the stimulus, Miller never actually says dishonest people make good mayors. He only says that honest people have a weakness.
3. Miller directly defends brightness. Again, he’s saying the criticized trait is actually beneficial, unlike the stimulus.
4. Similar to B and C. Miller links high cost to a positive quality.
5. This structure is completely different. Wu recommends a candidate while Miller recommends a different candidate.