LSAT 136 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q21

LR Question 21 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: The mayor was not telling the truth when he said that…

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

CONCLUSION: The bridge renovation was wasteful.

REASONING: The Southern Tier project was wasteful. The bridge renovation was part of that project.

ANALYSIS: This argument makes a whole to part error. We know the Souther Tier Project was wasteful.

That doesn’t mean that every part of the Southern Tier project was wasteful. Maybe the bridge renovation was very efficient.

I originally got this wrong, because I misread the question and thought the tier project was part of the bridge project. Make sure you keep whole and part straight for this type of question!

___________

1. CORRECT. This answer describes a whole to part error.
    
   The author concluded that the bridge project was wasteful because the larger Southern Tier project was wasteful. But individual parts of the Southern Tier project could have been efficient.
2. This is a part to whole error. It’s like saying, these students are intelligent, so the entire school must be intelligent.
3. The author never attacked the mayor personally. He did say the mayor lied, but that was his conclusion, not a personal attack supporting a conclusion.
4. This is code for circular reasoning. This argument is not circular, the conclusion is based on evidence from the government commission that found waste in the Southern Tier Project.
5. This is similar to C. It’s code for an ad hominem attack. But the author didn’t attack the mayor personally or discuss his motives.