QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning
CONCLUSION: We should adopt my plan.
REASONING: Council has debated a variety of alternatives. We can either adopt my plan or do nothing. Doing nothing would be bad.
ANALYSIS: The mayor hasn’t said why the only alternatives are his plan or nothing. He said council had debated many options. The mayor didn’t explain why those other options weren’t also possibilities. So, the mayor presented a false choice.
- Conservative estimates are appropriate here. They show that even a best case scenario is bad.
- Actually, the mayor’s plan and ‘doing nothing’ are mutually exclusive. Doing anything is the opposite of doing nothing.
- A decrease in the rate of increase is not that helpful. It means we will still have growth in traffic, just smaller growth. Gridlock will continue since road capacity isn’t growing. Failing to consider this isn’t a flaw.
- Everyone knows gridlock is pretty terrible. It would be useful to know the cost of gridlock, but everyone agrees it’s something that must be avoided on a road system. It’s not a flaw to avoid calculating an exact cost of gridlock.
- CORRECT. Exactly. The mayor never said why other options are unthinkable. He even said council had considered other options.
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly