LR Question 14 Explanation, by LSATHacks
QUESTION TEXT: Council member: I recommend that the abandoned shoe…
QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning
CONCLUSION: The abandoned shoe factory would be a better shelter site than the courthouse.
REASONING: The councilor’s opponents have provided no evidence that the courthouse would be better.
ANALYSIS: The councilor commits the same flaw he accuses his opponents of committing: he provides no evidence that the shoe factory is a better site for a shelter.
___________
- Close, but not quite. The counselor didn’t say there was no evidence against his claim. He said there was no evidence for the opposing claim.
- CORRECT. Lack of evidence for one claim does not mean we should accept the other claim if that claim also has no evidence.
- The councilor didn’t say anything personal about his opponents. He made a statement of fact: they hadn’t provided any evidence.
- The councilor did not say anything about how scary homeless people would be if they were sheltered at the courthouse (for example).
- Other councilors do actually hold the position that the shelter should be at the courthouse.
Free Five Part LSAT Email Course
Hi, I'm Graeme Blake
Founder of LSAThacks; I scored a 177 on the LSAT.
I created the LSAT Mastery Seminars, which are part of the Ultimate LSAT Prep Bundle
If you like the explanations you're reading I'm 100% confident you'll enjoy the courses. Satisfaction guaranteed.
---------
Updates:
For updates, sign up for my email list. I update whenever I have new posts.
the answer choice says the council members argument is that of ACCEPTING a claim simply because…… How is he accepting??
Good question. He is accepting his own claim. It’s a little odd phrasing, but the question stem refers to a technique used in the argument. So more properly, the argument accepts his claim. Still a little odd but we needn’t quibble too much. He has clearly accepted the idea that the shoe factory is a good location.
Note: This is an old comment but I wanted to clarify the point.
im having a problem understanding why we don’t call the lack of proof FOR the other council members view a lack of proof AGAINST this council members view. Once we use the word “better”, as they do in the other council members view, doesn’t it turn each view against the other?
There is a lack of proof for and against both views. Effectively, we know nothing.
I’m not quite sure I understand your question. The issue is whether we have evidence that one is better than the other. Since neither side provided any evidence, all we can say is we don’t know.
I am having the same issue. A also seems like a valid answer: lack of evidence that [the courthouse is better] is lack of evidence against the idea that [the shoe factory is better], and the council member utilizes that as proof that the shoe factory is better. A seems equally valid to B…