LSAT Explanation PT 24, S3, Q12: People in the tourist industry know

LSAT Question Stem

The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on which one of the following grounds? 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Flaw question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is D. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

Let's first analyze the argument in the passage. The argument can be broken down as follows:

Premise 1: Excessive development of seaside areas by the tourist industry damages the environment.

Premise 2: Excessive development hurts the tourist industry by making these areas unattractive to tourists.

Premise 3: People in the tourist industry would never knowingly do anything to damage the industry.

Conclusion: People in the tourist industry would never knowingly damage the seaside environment, and people who are concerned about damage to the seaside environment have nothing to fear from the tourist industry.

The question type of this problem is a Flaw question, which asks us to identify the flaw in the reasoning of the argument.

Now let's evaluate each answer choice:

a) No support is provided for the claim that excessive development hurts the tourist industry.

- This answer choice is incorrect because the passage does provide support for this claim in Premise 2.

b) That something is not the cause of a problem is used as evidence that it never coexists with that problem.

- This answer choice is incorrect because the argument does not use the absence of a cause as evidence that the problem never coexists with it. The argument is about whether the tourist industry would knowingly cause harm to the environment.

c) The argument shifts from applying a characteristic to a few members of a group to applying the characteristic to all members of that group.

- This answer choice is incorrect because the argument does not shift from discussing a few members of the tourist industry to all members. It deals with the tourist industry as a whole throughout the passage.

d) The possibility that the tourist industry would unintentionally harm the environment is ignored.

- This answer choice is correct. The argument's conclusion is based on the idea that the tourist industry would never knowingly harm the environment. However, this does not guarantee that they would not unintentionally harm the environment. The argument fails to consider this possibility, which makes it vulnerable to criticism.

e) The argument establishes that a certain state of affairs is likely and then treats that as evidence that the state of affairs is inevitable.

- This answer choice is incorrect because the argument does not claim that any state of affairs is inevitable. It only claims that the tourist industry would not knowingly harm the environment.

So, the correct answer is D. The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism because it ignores the possibility that the tourist industry would unintentionally harm the environment.