LSAT Explanation PT 32, S4, Q6: Editorial: The premier's economic advisor assures

LSAT Question Stem

Which one of the following is a questionable argumentative strategy employed in the editorial's argument? 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Flaw question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is C. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

Let's first analyze the argument in the passage. The editorial concludes that the premier should discard any hope of reducing taxes without a significant decrease in government services. The reason provided for this conclusion is that the premier's economic advisor, who supports the idea, was convicted of embezzlement in his youth. This argument has one premise (the advisor's past conviction) and one conclusion (the premier should discard the idea).

To help you understand the argument better, let's use a simple example. Imagine your friend tells you that a certain restaurant has the best pizza in town. However, you know that your friend once stole a slice of pizza from another friend. Based on this past action, you decide not to trust your friend's recommendation about the restaurant. This is similar to the argument in the passage, where the advisor's past conviction is used to dismiss his economic advice.

An "Evaluate" question for this argument could be: "Is the advisor's past conviction relevant to the quality of his economic advice?"

Now, let's discuss the answer choices. The question type is a Flaw question, which asks us to identify a questionable argumentative strategy employed in the editorial's argument.

a) The argument does not reject a proposal based on the likelihood of a particular implementation failing. The focus is on the advisor's past conviction, not on any specific implementation of the proposal.

b) The argument does not play on people's fears of what could happen otherwise. It focuses on the advisor's past conviction and doesn't discuss potential consequences if the premier follows the advisor's advice.

c) This answer choice correctly identifies the flaw in the argument. The editorial criticizes the source of the claim (the advisor's past conviction) rather than examining the claim itself (the possibility of reducing taxes without significantly decreasing government services).

d) The argument does not take a lack of evidence for a claim as evidence undermining that claim. Instead, it uses the advisor's past conviction as evidence against the claim, which is an unrelated issue.

e) The argument does not presuppose what it sets out to establish. It provides a reason (the advisor's past conviction) for its conclusion, even though this reason is a weak and irrelevant one.

Therefore, the correct answer is (c), as it accurately describes the flaw in the argument: criticizing the source of a claim rather than examining the claim itself.