LR Question 7 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Party X has recently been accused by its opposition…
QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Parallel Reasoning
CONCLUSION: It is wrong to say that Party X did something illegal.
REASONING: Party Y accused Party X of illegal activity. Party Y once did something illegal.
ANALYSIS: This argument makes an ad hominem flaw. The author assumes that Party Y’s argument is wrong just because Party Y once did something illegal.
Party Y could be right, even though they’ve previously done illegal things.
___________
- This is a bad argument, but it’s not an ad hominem flaw.
The flaw here is that while it may or may not be immoral to break the law in question, it’s certainly illegal. - This is actually a good argument. If you break a law and then accuse someone of the same violation, you are a hypocrite.
In the stimulus, the author did not accuse Party Y of hypocrisy. They accused them of being wrong. That’s a different accusation. - CORRECT. This matches the structure. It says the plaintiff is wrong in their accusation because they also did the same thing.
But it’s possible the plaintiff’s accusation is right, even if the plaintiff is also guilty of the same violation. - This is a bad argument, but it’s not an ad hominem flaw.
The error here is that the accusations could be correct even if they were only made to stir up controversy. - This is a bad argument, but it’s not an ad hominem flaw.
The plaintiff only said that the defendant will benefit from the laws they vote for. That’s either true or it’s not. It doesn’t matter whether the votes were justifiable. That’s a separate question from whether the votes benefitted the defendant.
More Resources for Flawed Parallel Reasoning Questions
- Conditional Reasoning Article: Learn about conditional statements.
- LR Diagrams Guide: Learn how to draw LR diagrams.
- Flaw drills: Practice identifying flaws.
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Flawed Parallel Reasoning questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers flawed parallel reasoning questions.
This was one of the most difficult A or B decisions I’ve ever encountered. I narrowed my choices down to either B or C and looked carefully between the two. I chose B because it matched the structure almost perfectly (aside from the “hypocritical” point) and I did not choose C because towards the end of the answer it says- “Nevertheless because the plaintiff was RECENTLY engaged in actions similar to….” At the end of the stimulus it says the party was involved THREE YEARS ago. I took the wording in C about it being a recent event to be the deceptive distinguishment between the two answers.
I understand why B is correct, but could you maybe explain further so I understand the test writer’s thought process because right now I’m 50/50 on these A or B type questions.
Thank you.
In parallel, the first thing you want to try to match is the conclusion. Here, the conclusion is “the accusation was ill founded”. C matches this perfectly, whereas B makes a huge departure by saying “therefore, the plaintiff is hypocritical”.
On a question like this you should only consider answers which have ill founded as the conclusion.
Btw, you meant C is correct, right? B is the wrong answer.
Have you looked at LSATHacks Pro? The LR mastery seminar has a whole series on parallel and flaw parallel that goes into this and how to prioritize answers, you might like it. https://lsathacks.com/product/lsat-hacks-pro-subscription/
there’s no causal reasoning in the stimulus
C’s flaw is in its causal reasoning ¿
the accusations in D can be true even if they were just made to stir up controversy in the same way that the accusations in the stimulus can be true even if Party Y had a scandal too