LSAT 126 | Section 4 | Logical Reasoning: Q17

LR Question 17 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Politician: Some of my opponents have argued on theoretical…

QUESTION TYPE: Flaw

CONCLUSION: The politician claims it is unwarranted to reduce social expenditure.

ANALYSIS: The politician dismisses his opponents’ arguments without giving a reason. He claims the main problem is bureaucrats.

It is possible that spending on bureaucrats is excessive and that social spending is excessive. Or perhaps spending on both is reasonable. We need evidence to make that judgment, and the politician hasn’t provided any.

___________

1. CORRECT. This is it. He gives us nothing we could use to make a judgment.
2. He doesn’t say anything about their character. Before choosing an answer like this, make sure you can complete this sentence: “The politician says _______ about his opponent’s character.”
3. Notice he says that deficit spending has a “main cause.” He believes there is more than one cause.
4. No. He doesn’t even describe their views. Use the technique in answer choice B.
5. We don’t need precise definition. His conclusion is that social spending should not be reduced. He doesn’t actually say spending on bureaucrats should be cut.

Recap: The question begins with “Politician: Some of my opponents have argued on theoretical”. It is a Flawed Reasoning question. Learn how to master LSAT Flaw questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.