LSAT 23 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q23

LR Question 23 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: An independent audit found no indication of tax…

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Parallel Reasoning

CONCLUSION: The firm isn’t avoiding taxes.

REASONING: An audit found no evidence the firm is avoiding taxes.

ANALYSIS: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because you don’t have any proof that the firm is cheating, doesn’t mean they aren’t cheating. Maybe they just hid the evidence well.

___________

1. This is a different error. The past does not guarantee the future; things can change.
2. This is a good argument. If no single project was far over budget, then it’s impossible for the whole set of projects to be far over budget.
3. This is close, but a bit different. An audit is supposed to tell us whether there is fraud. An index in a book is supposed to tell us whether a book mentions something (that’s from the right answer).
    
   But a student essay is not supposed to tell us what students are interested in. They’re supposed to demonstrate a topic the students know something about, even if they don’t care about it.
    
   Also, this answer choice only mentions the best student essays, so it might be an unrepresentative sample.
4. This is a bad argument, but a different error. All of the buildings need repair. But that doesn’t mean that education is bad. You can get a good education in a bad building, as long as it doesn’t collapse.
5. CORRECT. This is the same error. We have no evidence that the book mentioned the critic. But that’s not the same thing as having evidence that the book didn’t mention the critic.
    
   It’s the difference between failing to prove something, and actively disproving something.

Recap: The question begins with “An independent audit found no indication of tax”. It is a Flawed Parallel Reasoning question. Learn how to master LSAT Flawed Parallel questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.