LSAT 151 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q3

LR Question 3 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Legislator: A foreign company is attempting to buy FerroMetal …

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

CONCLUSION: We should prohibit the sale of FerroMetal.

REASONING: If we allow the sale, foreigners will control iron mining. As a result, we’ll no longer have a reliable supply of domestic iron, which we need for our economy.

ANALYSIS: This is basically saying: “if we allow this one thing, everything spirals and we’re screwed.”

The problem is they just assume that whole chain will happen. They don’t consider any other outcomes. Like maybe the government could still regulate future sales, or maybe foreign ownership wouldn’t lead to total control, or supply wouldn’t actually be threatened.

The issue isn’t just that the chain is speculative, but that it treats it like it’s the ONLY possible outcome.

___________

1. This is describing circular reasoning. But the conclusion isn’t just repeating a premise here.
   Example of flaw: We should block the sale because allowing it would be a bad idea, so we shouldn’t allow it.
2. The argument didn’t generalize from one industry to all industries. It stays within iron mining.
   Example of flaw: Foreign ownership hurt the oil industry, so we shouldn’t allow foreign ownership of any business.
3. It’s not defending a practice at all. It’s actually saying we should ban it. And the argument for banning it isn’t based on an appeal to popularity.
   Example of flaw: Most people oppose foreign ownership of mining companies, so we should block the sale.
4. CORRECT. Exactly this. They give one possible chain of consequences and act like it’s the only thing that would happen.
5. There’s no reverse causation. Nothing here depends on effects happening before causes.
   Example of flaw: Manufacturers will lose access to domestic iron, which is why foreign companies will be able to buy FerroMetal.