LSAT 11 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q17

LR Question 17 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Of the two proposals for solving the traffic problems on Main Street …

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Parallel Reasoning

CONCLUSION: Chen’s plan is better.

REASONING: The main supporter of Ripley’s plan is Smith Stores, which has high-paid consultants and has supported its own interests in the past rather than public interest.

ANALYSIS: How do we know that Ripley’s plan is bad just because Smith Stores is problematic? And how do we know Chen’s plan is any better?

We’re looking for something that reflects that X is bad or Y is better because the person who supports X has bad history/motives. And there should be no direct engagement with the actual substance of either option.

___________

1. This is about conflicting interests, not about who supports the plan or their character.
2. This is a form of appeal to authority, not an attack on the opposition.
3. Close but not quite. This actually contrasts the motivations of the two groups in relation to their impact on the public, so it does speak to the substance of the plans.
4. This is also an appeal to authority, not a rejection based on negative traits of the opponent’s supporter.
5. CORRECT. This supports a plan solely by attempting to discredit the plan’s opponent. The answer says the city is self-interested and opposed to suburban needs. Parallel to how the stimulus rejects Ripley’s plan based on Smith Stores’ motives.