The parliamentarian has often stated that no crime that impacts only a few individual victims deserves capital punishment and, therefore, capital punishment should be awarded only for the rarest of rare crimes that threaten the survival or well-being of the society as a whole. When gruesome crimes involving only one or two victims but generally viewed as deserving capital punishment are cited as possible counterexamples, the parliamentarian justifies his stance by saying that if those crimes deserve capital punishment, they cannot have impacted only a few individual victims.The parliamentarian's reasoning contains which one of the following errors?
Answer(s): E
Argument constructionThe parliamentarian states that no crime that impacts only a few victims (for example, murdering only one or two people) deserves capital punishment. Therefore, on the basis of this statement, he concludes that the capital punishment can be awarded only for the rarest of rare crimes that threaten the survival or well-being of the society as a whole.Some people object to this conclusion and give as counterexamples such cases in which only one or two people may have been killed but which were so brutal or gruesome as to make the general population think that the murderer deserved to get capital punishment.To this objection, the parliamentarian responds that if those cases really deserve capital punishment, then they must have hurt more than a few individual victims.Flaw in the argumentLet's dissect the argument.The parliament' principle:The parliamentarian decides the applicability of capital punishment for a crime by looking at the number of victims impacted by the crime. If a crime impacts only a few individual victims, then capital punishment should not be awarded.The Parliamentarian's Conclusion/AssertionCapital punishment should be awarded if and only if a crime impacts the survival or well-being of the whole society.How does he support this conclusion? Simply by citing his above principle.People's counterexample:Gruesome crimes that impact only one or two individual victims but are generally considered to deserve capital punishment.The parliamentarian's defense:The counterexample doesn't ruffle the parliamentarian at all. Rather, he still uses his principle to respond to it.He says that if the gruesome crimes that are offered as a counterexample deserve capital punishment, then they cannot have impacted only a few individuals. (Perhaps he would go down the road of showing how the families or neighborhoods of the victims were impacted too, or how those crimes destabilized the society as a whole and therefore merited capital punishment to preserve the well-being of the society etc.) What is the flaw in the parliamentarian's reasoning?He makes a conclusion based on nothing but his self-proclaimed stance treated as the absolute and incontrovertible truth. When that conclusion is challenged by counterexamples, he again responds by citing his stance, and suggests that if those counterexamples are true, then they must adhere to his stance.Let's analyze each option one by one.Answer choices explanation:[It contains an unfounded acceptance of a popular opinion.] This is incorrect. While the parliamentarian does blindly accept his stance to be true ("unfounded acceptance"), the argument does not suggest that this stance is popular and is the generally held opinion of most people.[It relies on the parliamentarian's authority on legal or sociological matters.] This is incorrect. There is nothing in the argument that suggests that the parliamentarian exercised his authority/power to enforce his opinion.[It seeks to convince by emotion rather than logic.] This is incorrect. There is nothing in the argument that suggests that the parliamentarian appealed emotionally to sell his opinion.[It attempts to substantiate a viewpoint by appeal to an unrelated contemplation.] This is incorrect. The counter-argument advanced by the parliamentarian (in response to the counterexamples) is relevant to the argument.[It assumes what it intends to substantiate.] This is correct. It is in line with the analysis done above. The parliamentarian's conclusion is rather a rephrase of his opinion.
As per a report published by the United States Bureau of Economic Analysis, in the last five years, the per capita income of American workers employed in Agriculture and allied services has increased by 10 percent while that of American workers employed in other sectors has increased by 20 percent. Therefore, American workers employed in other sectors now earn a higher per capita income than those employed in Agriculture and allied services.The argument's reasoning is questionable because the argument fails to rule out the possibility that
Answer(s): B
Argument constructionA report (published by the United States Bureau of Economic Analysis) talks about two kinds of American workers:Those employed in Agriculture and allied services let's call this Group A, andThose employed in Other Sectors let this be Group BAs per the report, in the last five years, the per capita income of:Group A has increased by 10%Group B has increased by 20%From the above premises, the following conclusion is drawn: (Per Capita Income of Group B today) > (Per Capita Income of Group A today)Flaw in the argumentLet's dissect the argument. Let's assume that 5 years ago, the per capita income of Group A was A0Group B was B0Then, as per the report findings, the per capita income today of Group A is A1 = A0 + 10% of A0 = 1.1A0Group B is B1 = B0 + 20% of B0 = 1.2B0The ConclusionB1 > A1; That is, 1.2B0 > 1.1A0We know from the question statement that this conclusion is flawed. What is the flaw in it? In the above inequality, 1.2 is certainly greater than 1.1. However, can we be sure that B0 is greater than A0? Does the argument give us any basis to assume this? The answer to both questions is 'No.' What if B0 were significantly smaller than A0? Say, B0 was 40,000 dollars while A0 was 60,000 dollars? Then:B1 = 1.2B0 = 1.2 × 40,000 = 48,000 dollarsA1 = 1.1A0 = 1.1 × 60,000 = 66,000 dollarsIn such a case, the conclusion drawn by the argument (B1 > A1) is proved wrong.Therefore, the flaw in the argument is that it fails to consider the cases where B0 < A0.Let's analyze each option one by one.Answer choices explanation[five years ago, fewer American workers were employed in other sectors than in Agriculture and allied services] This is incorrect. Since the comparison is between the per capita incomes of the two sectors, the number of workers in either sector is not relevant.The value of per capita income therefore already takes into account the 'number of workers.' Had the 'total income' of the two sectors been mentioned in the argument along with their per capita incomes, then the 'number of workers' might have been a factor.[five years ago, the per capita income of American workers employed in other sectors was significantly less...]This is correct. As per this option, the flaw in the argument is that it fails to rule out the possibility that B0 < A0.This is in-line with the discussion done in the 'Argument construction' section.[over the last five years, the number of American workers employed in other sectors has decreased] This is incorrect. One of the ways in which the per capita income of other sectors could have increased is with decreasing number of workers; there is no reason to rule out the possibility that the increase in the per capita income happened due to this reason. Therefore, failing to rule it out does not make the reasoning questionable.[over the last five years, many American workers who were previously employed in Agriculture and allied services shifted to other sectors] This is incorrect. Since the per capita income depends on the number of workers, the changing numbers of Groups A and B, as suggested in this option, would have impacted the respective per capita incomes of both the groups. However, this does not affect the argument at all since neither the premises nor the conclusion concern themselves with 'how or why' the per capita income of each group changed. Therefore, failing to rule out the possibility that the change in per capita income happened due to the reason suggested in this option is no error in reasoning.[the total national income generated by Agriculture and allied services now is still greater than that generated by other sectors] This is incorrect. If the total national income generated by Agriculture and allied services was greater than that generated by other sectors five years ago and remains greater now, but the number of workers employed in Agriculture and allied services is far greater than those in other sectors, then the conclusion B1 > A1 is still possible. (For an example with easy numbers, considerandTherefore, failing to rule out the possibility of this option does not prove the conclusion wrong.
Henry: An average American car driver drives a thousand miles per month. If all American car drivers drove only five miles less daily, their monthly mileage would reduce by 15 percent. Five miles is ten thousand steps, the amount of daily walking recommended by doctors for good health. Therefore, if the government could persuade car drivers to drive five miles less daily and walk that distance instead, the total transport-related carbon emissions in the United States would reduce by 15 percent.Bill: Cars are responsible for 30 percent of all transport-related carbon emissions in the United States.Bill's response to Henry proceeds by
Answer(s): A
Argument constructionHenry tells us that:An average American car driver drives a thousand miles per month.1. So, if all American car drivers drove only five miles less daily, their monthly mileage would reduce by 15 percent (5 × 30 = 150 miles = 15% of 1000 miles).Five miles is ten thousand steps, the amount of daily walking recommended by doctors for good health.Therefore, if the government can persuade car drivers to drive five miles less daily and walk that distance instead, the total transport-related carbon emissions in the United States would reduce by 15 percent.Bill responds to Henry by saying that cars are responsible for only 30 percent of all transport-related carbon emissions in the United States.Understanding how the argument proceedsLet's dissect the argument.When we strip Henry's argument to its essence, it is this:'Reducing average monthly mileage of American car owners by 15 percent would reduce the total transport- related carbon emissions in the United States by 15 percent.'So, Henry is assuming that only car owners are responsible for transport-related carbon emissions in the United States. In his mind, the formula for transport-related carbon emissions is:(Total transport-related carbon emissions per month) = (Average carbon emissions made per car mile) × (Average monthly miles driven per driver) × (Number of drivers) Note that the right-hand side of this equation would give 'total car-related carbon emissions per month'. Henry assumes that this number is equal to 'total transport-related carbon emissions per month'.By pointing out that total car-related carbon emissions are, in fact, only 30 percent of all transport-related carbon emissions in the United States, Bill is telling Henry that his assumption was mistaken. And due to this mistake, Henry's argument is incorrect.Let's analyze each option one by one.Answer choices explanation[refuting an assumption on which Henry's argument relies] This is correct. It accords with the discussion done in the argument analysis above.[discrediting Henry's argument by giving of erroneous information] This is incorrect. We have no reason to decide that the information given by Bill is erroneous.[arguing that the benefit of Henry's hypothetical measure might also be achieved in another way] This is incorrect. The benefit of Henry's hypothetical measure is a 15 percent reduction in the total transport-related carbon emissions in the United States. Bill suggests no other way to achieve this benefit.[citing seemingly irrefutable evidence that contradicts one of the stated premises on which Henry's argument depends] This is incorrect. The stated premises on which Henry's argument depends are: If all American car drivers drove only five miles less daily, their monthly mileage would reduce by 15 percent. Five miles is ten thousand steps to walk. (The argument also makes use of an unstated premise (that is, an assumption): all transport-related carbon emissions in the United States are made by cars.) Bill's response does not contradict either of the two stated premises listed above. Further, Bill cites evidence that contradicts Henry's claim, not a premise.[providing additional information in support of Henry's argument] This is incorrect. As discussed in the analysis section above, Bill's response does not support Henry's argument.
Tony: Most web-pages on the internet have numerous enticing and hard-to-ignore hyperlinks, with each hyperlink leading to further hyperlinks and so on. Regularly falling into this bottomless hole of distracting and mostly trivial information on the internet decreases the ability of heavy internet users to do complex reasoning that requires focus and attention.James: A research study has found that heavy internet users did better than infrequent users on tests for focus and attention and also had stronger muscles in the brain areas associated with complex reasoning, which suggests a higher usage of these muscles. The dialogue most strongly supports the claim that Tony and James disagree with each other about whether
Answer(s): D
Argument constructionTony says that most web-pages on the internet have multiple enticing and hard-to-ignore hyperlinks. Each of these links leads to further hyperlinks and so on. This chain of 'link 1 leading to link 2 leading to link 3...' creates, in Tony's words, a "bottomless hole of distracting and mostly trivial information." He says that regularly falling into this hole decreases the ability of heavy internet users to do complex reasoning that requires focus and attention.James responds by citing a research study that found that heavy internet users did better than infrequent users on tests for attention and also had higher levels of activation in the brain areas associated with complex reasoning.Understanding the point at issueWe need to understand each person's stance clearly to understand the point at issue.Tony's stance essentially is: Heavy internet usage decreases the ability to do complex reasoning that requires focus and attention.1. Prior to declaring this stance, he explains how the internet is full of enticing links that lead you to tons of distracting information.2. He implies that regularly falling into the temptations of internet would decrease a heavy internet user's attention span and ability to focus, and since these two are required to do complex reasoning, these user's ability to do complex reasoning would decrease.James' stance essentially is: Heavy internet users have better ability to focus and attention and also seem to be more actively doing complex reasoning than infrequent internet users.1. He cites a research study's findings to support his claim.Therefore, the point at issue between Tony and James is whether heavy internet usage decreases a person's ability to do complex reasoning or not. Tony says 'Yes' and James says 'No.' Let's analyze each option one by one.Answer choices explanation[focus and attention are necessary to do complex reasoning] This is incorrect. Tony explicitly states that focus and attention are necessary to do complex reasoning. As far as James is concerned, the research finding cited by him shows better 'focus and attention' and also more frequent complex reasoning in heavy internet users.Therefore, James too seems to believe that there is at least a correlation between 'focus and attention' and 'complex reasoning.' Since he does not actively rebut Tony on this matter, this is certainly not a bone of contention the point at issue between the two.[most web-pages on the internet require internet users to do complex reasoning] This is incorrect. Tony implies that most web-pages on the internet offer distracting information. Since he believes that complex reasoning requires focus and attention (the opposites of distraction), he might also believe that most web-pages on the internet do not require users to do complex reasoning. James' argument is that heavy internet users do complex reasoning more frequently than infrequent users. We cannot infer from this that James believes that most web-pages on the internet require such skills. James might believe, for example, that heavy internet users are more likely than infrequent users to visit certain specific web-pages that require users to do complex reasoning. Therefore, we cannot infer whether James supports or opposes this option statement. Since we don't even know for sure what James thinks about it, this option certainly is not the point at issue between him and Tony.[most web-pages on the internet have hard-to-ignore hyperlinks] This is incorrect. Tony explicitly supports this statement. However, nothing that Tony says commits him to a particular view on this statement. There is certainly no indication that the two hold opposing views on this matter.[heavy internet usage decreases a person's ability to do complex reasoning] This is correct. It is in-line with our discussion in the 'Argument Construction' section.[heavy internet users are more knowledgeable than infrequent internet users] This is incorrect. 'Knowledge' and 'information' are two distinct entities. While Tony does seem to imply that heavy internet users access more information on the internet than infrequent users, he does not touch at all the question of how much, if at all, this extra information improves the knowledge of heavy internet users. James is silent on both the relative information consumption and the relative knowledge of heavy and infrequent users. Therefore, it is not possible to deduce the stance of either Tony or James on this option statement.
The Urban Intelligence Unit publishes an annual Livability Ranking, which ranks 100 American cities for their quality of life based on assessments of urban infrastructure, healthcare, education, crime rates, culture and climate. Yet, this ranking should also consider unemployment rates. After all, if a city is unable to offer work opportunities to a sizeable proportion of its population that needs to work for survival, the quality of life for that proportion would be abysmal.The claim that the Livability Ranking should consider unemployment rates in a city plays which one of the following roles in the argument?
Argument constructionThe annual Livability Ranking (published by Urban Intelligence Unit) ranks 100 American cities for their quality of life based on assessments of:urban infrastructure healthcare education crime rates culture limate.However, this ranking should also consider unemployment rates.Reason - If a city is unable to offer work opportunities to a sizeable proportion of its population that needs to work for survival, the quality of life for that proportion would be abysmal.Understanding the role played by the claimLet's dissect the argument.The first step in analyzing this argument is identifying the conclusion. To do this, let's find the position for which the argument offers support.From the first sentence, we know that Rankings are based on quality of life.The same sentence lists six factors that are assessed in determining the quality of life.The last sentence begins with the phrase 'After all,' which indicates that the statement that follows it is a premise. This premise, simply put, is that high unemployment rate means poor quality of life.When we put this sentence in conjunction with the first sentence, we see that the argument is constructed to support the position stated in the second sentence: "... [the Livability] ranking should also consider unemployment rates."Thus, the claim "this ranking should also consider unemployment rates" asked about in the question is the conclusion of the argument.Let's analyze each option one by one.Answer choices explanation[It offers a reason to support the conclusion.] This is incorrect. The claim is not an explanation or a reason- giving-statement.[It is an assertion that refutes the conclusion.] This is incorrect. The claim does not refute any statement in the argument.[It is a principle from which the conclusion is derived.] This is incorrect. The claim does not act as the source (principle) of any further conclusion.[It is a premise of the argument.] This is incorrect. As discussed in the 'Argument Construction' section, the premises of the argument are contained in the first and the third sentences of the argument. The claim is not a premise.[It is a conclusion of the argument.] This is correct. It is in-line with our discussion in the 'Argument Construction' section.
Post your Comments and Discuss Test Prep LSAT Test exam prep with other Community members:
Our website is free, but we have to fight against AI bots and content theft. We're sorry for the inconvenience caused by these security measures. You can access the rest of the LSAT Test content, but please register or login to continue.