LSAT Explanation PT 38, S4, Q8: Politician: My opponent says our zoning

LSAT Question Stem

The politician's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that 

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 politician is making the following argument:

Premise: My opponent's lifestyle contradicts his own argument.

Conclusion: His argument should not be taken seriously.

The question type is a Flaw question, which asks us to identify the primary weakness in the politician's reasoning.

Now let's go through the answer choices:

a) This answer choice suggests that the politician's characterization of the opponent's lifestyle reveals a prejudice against constructing apartment buildings. However, this is not the primary flaw in the politician's reasoning. The main issue is that the opponent's lifestyle is irrelevant to the merits of the argument.

b) This answer choice points out that apartment buildings can be built in the suburbs just as easily as in the city. While this may be true, it does not address the primary flaw in the politician's reasoning, which is the irrelevance of the opponent's lifestyle to the merits of the argument.

c) This answer choice suggests that the politician's reasoning is flawed because it fails to mention the politician's own living situation. However, the politician's living situation is also irrelevant to the merits of the opponent's argument. The primary flaw is still the irrelevance of the opponent's lifestyle.

d) This is the correct answer. The politician's discussion of the opponent's lifestyle is irrelevant to the merits of the opponent's argument. The opponent's personal choices do not necessarily reflect the validity of their argument about zoning laws.

e) This answer choice suggests that the politician's reasoning is flawed because it ignores the possibility that the opponent may have previously lived in an apartment building. However, this information is not relevant to the main issue, which is the irrelevance of the opponent's lifestyle to the merits of their argument. Even if the opponent had lived in an apartment before, it would not change the fact that their personal choices do not determine the validity of their argument.

An "Evaluate" question for this argument could be: "Is the opponent's lifestyle relevant to the validity of their argument about zoning laws?"

In conclusion, the primary flaw in the politician's reasoning is that the discussion of the opponent's lifestyle is irrelevant to the merits of the opponent's argument (answer choice D). The opponent's personal choices do not necessarily reflect the validity of their argument about zoning laws.