LSAT Explanation PT 33, S1, Q22: Lawyer: Did Congleton assign the best

LSAT Question Stem

Each of the following accurately describes a flaw in the lawyer's reasoning displayed above EXCEPT: 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Flaw question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is B. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

In this LSAT problem, we have a dialogue between a lawyer and a witness. The lawyer is trying to argue that the witness lied when they said that Congleton wanted the project to fail, based on the fact that Congleton assigned the best available graphic artist, writer, and other top-notch team members to the project. The structure of the argument can be broken down as follows:

Premise: Congleton assigned the best available team members to the project.

Conclusion: The witness lied when they said Congleton wanted the project to fail.

The question type is a Flaw question, which asks us to identify the answer choice that does NOT accurately describe a flaw in the lawyer's reasoning. Let's examine each answer choice:

a) It takes for granted that Congleton was not forced to assign the people she did to the project.

This answer choice points out a flaw in the lawyer's reasoning. It suggests that the lawyer assumes Congleton had the choice to assign the team members, but it's possible that she was forced to do so, which would weaken the conclusion that the witness lied.

b) It takes for granted that the project could fail only if Congleton wanted it to fail.

This answer choice is the correct one because it does NOT describe a flaw in the lawyer's reasoning. The lawyer's argument does not assume that the project could only fail if Congleton wanted it to fail. Instead, the lawyer's argument is focused on whether Congleton wanted the project to fail based on her team assignments.

c) It ignores the possibility that Congleton knew that the people assigned to the project would not work well together.

This answer choice points out a flaw in the lawyer's reasoning. The lawyer's argument assumes that assigning top-notch team members indicates that Congleton wanted the project to succeed. However, it's possible that Congleton knew these team members would not work well together, which could still indicate a desire for the project to fail.

d) It ignores the possibility that the witness failed to infer from known facts what should have been inferred and therefore was not lying.

This answer choice points out a flaw in the lawyer's reasoning. The lawyer assumes that the witness lied, but it's possible that the witness simply failed to make the correct inference from the facts, which would not necessarily mean they lied.

e) It ignores the possibility that Congleton failed to allot enough time or resources to the project team.

This answer choice points out a flaw in the lawyer's reasoning. The lawyer's argument assumes that assigning top-notch team members indicates that Congleton wanted the project to succeed. However, it's possible that Congleton did not provide enough time or resources for the project to succeed, which could still indicate a desire for the project to fail.

In summary, the correct answer is B, as it does not accurately describe a flaw in the lawyer's reasoning. The other answer choices point out various flaws in the lawyer's argument, which weaken the conclusion that the witness lied about Congleton wanting the project to fail.