Discussion
The flawed reasoning exhibited by the argument above
is most similar to that exhibited by which one of the
following arguments?
*This question is included in Free Complete Section: LR-B, June '07 LSAT, question #20
| (A) | Our country should attempt to safeguard works of art that it deems to possess national cultural significance. These works might not be recognized as such by all taxpayers, or even all critics. Nevertheless, our country ought to expend whatever money is needed to procure all such works as they become available. |
| (B) | ... |
| (C) | ... |
| (D) | ... |
| (E) | ... |
| (F) | ... |
The solution is
Posted: 03/27/2012 09:09
I honestly can't tell which one follows the logic of the stimuli as they are all either incomplete or different in the flaw
Posted: 03/28/2012 14:23
Jessie, the reasoning in the problem's argument is flawed because it is not objectively about the old train station itself (the plus and minus of the demolition), but is directed against the people of a group who are in general opposed to any demolition. Similarly, the answer C's argument is flawed because it is not objectively about whether you really need a haircut more than 1x a month, but is directed against a group of people (beauticians) who recommend a different haircut frequency.
The rest of the choices present arguments that are logical and objectively about the positions taken.
The rest of the choices present arguments that are logical and objectively about the positions taken.
Posted: 03/29/2012 07:44
Okay, I think I understand, thank you
Posted: 03/29/2012 17:25
You are welcome Jessie. Please help us rate the app in the App Store. Thank you.
Posted: 11/16/2012 21:49
However, (C) does not paint a picture of the threat that a failure to concur may present, as does the example: "preserving old buildings creates an impediment. . ."
I saw the ad hominem circumstantial, but that missing component threw me off.
The answer to this question needs to be appended with something like: "vanity pilfers the pocketbook."
I saw the ad hominem circumstantial, but that missing component threw me off.
The answer to this question needs to be appended with something like: "vanity pilfers the pocketbook."