LSAT Explanation PT 44, S4, Q19: Political scientist: All governments worthy of
LSAT Question Stem
The flawed pattern of reasoning in which one of the following most closely parallels that in the political scientist'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 and identify its structure. The political scientist presents two premises and a conclusion:
Premise 1: All governments worthy of respect (GWR) allow their citizens to dissent from governmental policies (AD).
Premise 2: No government worthy of respect (GWR) leaves minorities unprotected (PM).
Conclusion: Any government that protects minorities (PM) permits criticism of its policies (AD).
The flaw in this argument lies in the unwarranted conclusion drawn from the two premises. The political scientist assumes that because GWR governments exhibit both AD and PM, any government that exhibits PM must also exhibit AD. This is not a valid conclusion based on the given premises.
An "Evaluate" question for this argument could be: "Is there any evidence that governments that protect minorities (PM) always allow dissent from governmental policies (AD)?"
The question type for this problem is Parallel Flaw, which asks us to identify an answer choice that contains a similar flaw in reasoning as the one in the passage.
Now, let's discuss the answer choices:
a) This answer choice contains a different type of flaw. The author attempts to draw an unjustified conclusion based on the definition of admirable politicians, but this flaw does not parallel the conditional reasoning in the passage.
b) This is the correct answer choice, as it employs the same type of flawed reasoning as the passage:
- All jazz musicians (JM) are capable of improvising (I)
- No jazz musician (JM) is incapable of reading music (RM)
- Conclusion: All who can read music (RM) can improvise (I)
Just like in the passage, the author takes two necessary variables from the premises and attempts to tie them together in a sufficient/necessary relationship, which is flawed.
c) This answer choice represents a different mistake in logic, specifically a mistaken negation. The reasoning here does not parallel that found in the passage.
d) The introduction of "some" in this answer choice indicates that it will not logically parallel the method of argumentation used in the passage.
e) This answer also contains "some," so it will not follow the same overall logical flow and is incorrect.
In conclusion, the correct answer choice is (B), as it employs the same type of flawed reasoning as the passage, taking two necessary variables from the premises and attempting to tie them together in a sufficient/necessary relationship.