QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning
CONCLUSION: Sigerson’s proposal isn’t honest.
REASONING: Sigerson wants to ban contributions from firms that do business with the city. But Sigerson has taken such contributions!
ANALYSIS: The argument is no good. Sure, Sigerson took campaign contributions. It wasn’t illegal! Sigerson will hopefully stop taking contributions once his law passes. Then there wouldn’t be any dishonesty. This argument focusses on Sigerson’s past behavior, while his law affects the future.
The conclusion is specific: Sigerson was dishonest. Three of the wrong answers talk about whether the proposal will or should pass. But the conclusion was that the proposal wasn’t honest. Whether or not the proposal passes doesn’t affect its honesty.
- This answer describes mixing up sufficient and necessary. The argument didn’t do that.
- The argument didn’t reject Sigerson’s proposal. The author just said the proposal was dishonest. If you bring me a gift and are dishonest about why you’re doing it, I might still accept the gift.
- Who cares what other politicians think? The conclusion was that the proposal is dishonest. Whether or not it passes doesn’t change whether it is dishonest.
- Sigerson is very familiar with campaign contributions. He took many of them himself.
- CORRECT. Sigerson might agree not to take contributions if his law passes. Then there would be no dishonesty. It currently isn’t illegal to take contributions.
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly