LSAT 8 | Section 1 | Logical Reasoning: Q21

LR Question 21 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Saunders: Everyone at last week’s neighborhood association…

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

CONCLUSION: Demolishing the houses was correct.

REASONING: Everyone agreed the houses posed a safety threat. Demolishing the houses removed that threat. It doesn’t matter that there was an alternate proposal that involved using public money to rehabilitate the houses.

ANALYSIS: Saunders hasn’t proven that his opponents’ proposal wouldn’t also have worked. There are generally many ways to solve a problem but only one “best” way.

___________

1. If I want to see outside, I can knock down a wall. That “works.” But a window would be a better idea.
   Fear isn’t a problem since everyone agreed the houses were scary and something had to be done. Besides, Saunders isn’t trying to persuade anyone to knock down the houses: they’ve already been demolished.
2. This would be a criticism of Saunders’ opponents. Saunders is just happy that he knocked down some houses.
3. Saunders didn’t claim that everyone supports him. He is aware that people disagree with him…that’s why he’s arguing!
4. CORRECT. Yes. Saunders thinks his strategy was right because it solved the problem. But the other strategy might also have solved the problem
5. The precise nature of the threat is fear of crime. Saunders says so.

Recap: The question begins with “Saunders: Everyone at last week’s neighborhood association”. It is a Flawed Reasoning question. Learn how to master LSAT Flaw questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.