QUESTION TEXT: Mayor: The law prohibiting pedestrians from crossing…
QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning
CONCLUSION: The law against jaywalking has no purpose.
REASONING: Many people break the jaywalking law. And those who always obey the law would not cross at red lights even if there were no law. A law has no useful purpose unless it deters the behavior it prohibits.
ANALYSIS: The argument mentions two kinds of people: those who always break the law and those who never break the law.
The correct answer introduces a third kind of person: those who only break the law sometimes. It’s possible that the law deters them.
- The argument is talking about pedestrians. It’s irrelevant what drivers do.
- Law is used consistently throughout. It means a legal prohibition.
- The argument didn’t say that a law definitely would serve a useful purpose if people obeyed it because they were deterred. It just claimed that there would definitely not be a useful purpose if people didn’t obey it.
- CORRECT. The argument ignores the middle ground between people who always jaywalk and people who never jaywalk.
- The argument is not talking about danger. It’s only talking about whether or not people obey the law.
Free Logical Reasoning lesson
Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions