LSAT 128 | Section 3 | Logical Reasoning: Q23

LR Question 23 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Councillor Miller opposes all proposals to raise taxes …

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Parallel Reasoning

CONCLUSION: Miller will oppose the proposal to increase school funding by raising property taxes, while Philopoulos will support it.

REASONING:

1. Miller opposes all tax increases
2. Philopoulos supports increased school funding, which in this area comes entirely from property taxes.

ANALYSIS: The argument correctly characterizes Miller. Miller explicitly opposes ALL tax increases, so it logically follows that he’ll oppose this one too, since it involves a tax increase.

But the argument is flawed on Philopoulos. All we know is that he supports increased school funding. That doesn’t mean he supports any measure that will increase it. He might prefer a different funding mechanism or oppose further property tax increases for other reasons. Maybe he thinks it’s flawed that this area only funds schools through property taxes and wants to change that. We don’t know. All we know is that he supports more funding for schools, so the conclusion that he’ll necessarily support the bill is flawed.

So you should be looking out for two things in an answer choice:

1. It makes a conclusion about two people/situations. One is logically valid.
2. The other is flawed because it is a misinterpretation of general support. It assumes that because someone supports an idea in general, they must support any specific policy that advances that idea.

___________

1. This is a flaw of causation and correlation. It assumes that Tara’s preference for Burke’s class must be due to the lack of exams, and that she therefore prefers papers over exams.

2. CORRECT. This follows the structure:

   • It correctly characterizes Jane. She refuses to live downtown so she won’t rent an apartment in the Joliet complex that’s downtown. This is like Miller.
   • It draws a flawed assumption on Denise, like the stimulus did with Philopoulos. Just because Denise wants to rent a penthouse downtown, doesn’t mean that she’ll necessarily rent one in this specific complex.
3. This is actually a valid argument. If Watson promised to never support fare increases, then it follows that he’ll oppose this proposal for doubling fares. It also doesn’t follow the structure of the stimulus with two people.
4. This follows the structure, but it’s actually a logically valid argument. Since Ed dislikes any food that’s very sweet, he’ll dislike these brownies that are very sweet. But Bill likes most extremely sweet food, so he’ll probably like the brownies. There’s no flaw here.
5. This doesn’t follow the structure of two people, and it’s also barely a flaw. It’s not a perfect argument, but it’s not unreasonable to say that because citizens have always opposed an increase, they’ll probably keep doing so.