QUESTION TEXT: Police captain: The chief of police has indicated…
QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning
CONCLUSION: There is no graft in my department.
REASONING: I know that one form of graft doesn’t exist. (Gifts over $100)
ANALYSIS: Your instinct may have been to think that the police captain is wrong about the lack of gifts. But that would be too obvious, and it’s not a typical type of LSAT flaw. Answers almost never contract the author.
The real flaw is that the police chief described one type of graft: gifts over $100.
But “graft” is a broad term. The definition is:
“practices, esp. bribery, used to secure illicit gains in politics or business; corruption”
You could, for example, accept a job later in return for corrupt services now. That’s a form of graft, and it wouldn’t fall under the $100 gift definition.
___________
- A limited sample would be something like “I asked Bob and Jane and they hadn’t taken gifts”.
The police captain was talking about her entire precinct, so the sample is 100% of the precinct. - CORRECT. If there are other types of graft, then it’s possible there’s graft in the precinct even if the captain is right about the lack of gifts.
- This isn’t a flaw, and it didn’t happen in the argument.
Example of this: They claim that Jill robbed the bank. This seems probable, since Jill has always talked about how banks are bad and how she wants money. Jill has a history of robbery. - This didn’t happen.
Example of flaw: We’ve proven there’s no graft. Therefore, no one in the department has ever done any other bad thing. - This almost never happens. It takes gross stupidity to contradict your own argument.
Example of flaw: I bribed one of my officers to spy on the department to see if there was corruption. He reported no one took bribes. So there are no bribes in my department.
Free Logical Reasoning lesson
Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions
Gee says
My problem with this is:
“… count as gift.” This is a definition.
“… ever taken SUCH gifts…” This is a direct reference to the previous definition, and covers the entire definition completely.
My understanding is that this eliminates other possibilities.
Therefore, I was naturally going to the same way of thinking as Akiyah did.
TutorLucas (LSAT Hacks) says
The line is that “gifts of cash or objects… count as graft.” So when the police captain says “I know with certainty, that no one has ever taken such gifts” he’s referring only to gifts of cash or objects – the flaw is that there are other forms of graft besides just these gifts of cash or objects. Gifts of experiences, like a baseball game, or other preferential treatment like helping an officers child get into a college they’re not qualified for could also count as graft. Just because his officers aren’t guilty of one type of graft doesn’t mean they’re not guilty of another type of graft.
-Reply from LSAT Tutor, Morgan Barrett
Akiyah says
Isn’t this a perception vs reality flaw? The Chief stated that knows “for certainty” that x didn’t occur and then concludes that x didn’t occur. But believing isn’t the same as it actually being factual hence she cant come to that conclusion based off her beliefs?
FounderGraeme says
No, this isn’t a belief vs. fact flaw. The LSAT tends to give deference to relevant authorities. Here, it’s reasonable to defer to the police chief’s knowledge of their precinct.
Note that if there were NO other flaws, then you could perhaps cite that as a flaw. But assuming the chief isn’t corrupt, and that they’re competent, it’s not hard to imagine they could actually know something like that.