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.
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly