LSAT 106 | Section 3 | Logical Reasoning: Q2

LR Question 2 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: A number of Grandville’s wealthiest citizens have been…

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

CONCLUSION: We shouldn’t let any wealthy person on the committee.

REASONING: Some wealthy people are criminals.

ANALYSIS: This evidence is weak. It could be that five out of 10,000 wealthy people in Grandville are criminals.

We’d need more evidence to show that almost all wealthy people in Grandville are criminals. Even then, it would be better to ban criminals directly.

___________

1. This is a different flaw; the stimulus doesn’t mention sufficient conditions. Here’s an example: I think that being rich is the same as being able to buy a sports car, because being rich allows you to buy a sports car.
2. This is a different flaw; the stimulus doesn’t mention time. Here’s an example: I think time makes you wiser, because people seem to get wiser as time passes. (in reality, it’s our experiences that make us wiser).
3. This is a different flaw; the stimulus didn’t mention actions or results. Here’s an example: I open a door, and knock over a ladder by mistake. Therefore you think that I intended to knock over the ladder.
4. This is a different flaw. Objective means something everyone can agree on. Subjective mean something that depends on your viewpoint.
5. CORRECT. It could be that only a tiny percentage of Grandville’s wealthy inhabitants are criminals.