QUESTION TYPE: Necessary Assumption
CONCLUSION: The current president was right to ask Dr. Hines to speak, even though the president didn’t consult members.
REASONING: A previous club president hired an accountant without consultation.
ANALYSIS: There are two problems here:
- We don’t know if the previous club president was right to hire the accountant.
- Hiring a tax accountant may be different from getting a speaker. Maybe choice of speaker always requires consultation.
- This doesn’t show that the previous club president acted appropriately when he didn’t consult.
- Tempting, but it doesn’t matter whether club members expected to be consulted. It matters whether it was appropriate not to consult them.
As an analogy, I don’t expect a totalitarian dictator to respect humans rights. But that doesn’t make it appropriate for him not to respect human rights.
- It doesn’t matter what Dr. Hines did. We’re concerned with the appropriateness of the request.
- This weakens the argument by showing that inviting a speaker is a more serious matter.
- CORRECT. If the previous president acted inappropriately then this is hardly a good argument.
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly