LSAT Explanation PT 34, S2, Q24: Lawyer: The defendant wanted to clear

LSAT Question Stem

The flawed reasoning in which one of the following is most similar to that in the lawyer's argument? 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Parallel Flaw question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is B. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

Let's first analyze the argument in the passage. The lawyer claims that the defendant maliciously harmed the plaintiff because the defendant intentionally removed snow from his car, which later caused the plaintiff's injury. The structure of the argument is as follows:

Premise: The defendant intentionally removed snow from his car.

Premise: The removed snow caused the plaintiff's injury.

Conclusion: The defendant maliciously harmed the plaintiff.

The flaw in this argument is that the lawyer assumes that because the defendant intentionally removed the snow, he also intended to cause harm to the plaintiff. However, the defendant's intention was only to clear the snow, not to cause harm.

An "Evaluate" question for this argument would be: "Did the defendant intend to cause harm to the plaintiff when he removed the snow from his car?"

Now let's discuss the question type and answer choices. This is a Parallel Flaw (PF) question, which asks us to identify the answer choice with reasoning most similar to the flaw in the lawyer's argument.

a) This answer choice is incorrect because it doesn't involve a flawed argument. Alice asked her sister to lie in court, which is illegal, so what Alice asked her sister to do was indeed illegal. The conclusion here doesn't involve Alice's intentions or desires.

b) This is the correct answer. Bruce wanted to eat the mincemeat pie, which was poisonous without his knowledge. The conclusion incorrectly assumes that Bruce wanted to eat poison, just like the lawyer's argument incorrectly assumes that the defendant intended to cause harm. Both arguments mistakenly attribute an intention to a consequence that was not known at the time of the action.

c) This answer choice is incorrect because the conclusion doesn't focus on Cheryl's intentions or desires. The flaw in this argument is that just because Cheryl denigrated an object her sister was responsible for doesn't necessarily mean that she denigrated her sister.

d) This answer choice is incorrect because the conclusion doesn't focus on Deon's intentions or desires. The flaw in this argument is that just because someone is generally thought to be X doesn't let us conclude that person definitely is X.

e) This answer choice is incorrect because it is an airtight argument and not flawed. Edwina unknowingly bought a stolen car and then resold it, so she did, in fact, sell a stolen car. The conclusion here doesn't involve Edwina's intentions or desires.

In summary, answer choice B is the correct answer because it replicates the flaw in the lawyer's argument, which involves mistakenly attributing an intention to a consequence that was not known at the time of the action.