LSAT 134 – Section 3 – Question 11

LSAT 134 - Section 3 - Question 11

October 2011

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Target time: 1:20

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question QuickView	Type	Tags	Answer Choices	Curve	Question Difficulty	Psg/Game/S Difficulty	Explanation
PT134 S3 Q11	+LR	Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw Value Judgment +ValJudg	A 7% 157 B 7% 160 C 1% 158 D 7% 161 E 79% 166	137 149 161	+Medium	146.872 +SubsectionMedium

Sigerson argues that the city should adopt ethical guidelines that preclude its politicians from accepting campaign contributions from companies that do business with the city. Sigerson’s proposal is dishonest, however, because he has taken contributions from such companies throughout his career in city politics.

Summarize Argument

Sigerson proposed an ethical guideline that prevents politicians from accepting campaign contributions from companies that do business with the city. The author concludes that this proposal is dishonest. This is based on the fact that Sigerson has taken contributions from such companies throughout his career in city politics.

Identify and Describe Flaw

The fact that Sigerson accepted contributions in the past doesn’t indicate that he believes his proposal shouldn’t apply to him or that his past acceptance of contributions is ethically acceptable. So there’s no basis to call the proposal “dishonest.” Sigerson may have taken advantage of the lack of a rule against accepting such contributions and now wants to ban those contributions for everyone going forward.

confuses a sufficient condition for adopting ethical guidelines for politicians with a necessary condition for adopting such guidelines

The argument isn’t based on conditional logic, so there’s no confusion of sufficient and necessary conditions.

rejects a proposal on the grounds that an inadequate argument has been given for it

The author doesn’t reject the proposal; she simply calls it dishonest. Also, the basis of the conclusion isn’t that there’s been an inadequate argument for the proposal. The basis is Sigerson’s past acceptance of contributions.

fails to adequately address the possibility that other city politicians would resist Sigerson’s proposal

Whether other politicians would resist the proposal is irrelevant, because the argument doesn’t concern the likelihood that the proposal will pass.

rejects a proposal on the grounds that the person offering it is unfamiliar with the issues it raises

The basis of the author’s conclusion isn’t that Sigerson is unfamiliar with the issues raised in the proposal. The basis is Sigerson’s own acceptance of contributions in the past.

overlooks the fact that Sigerson’s proposal would apply only to the future conduct of city politicians

In calling Sigerson’s proposal dishonest, the author seems to think that Sigerson’s past conduct is relevant. But Sigerson isn’t trying to cheat the rules; Sigerson has to follow the new guidelines, too, if the proposal is passed. So there’s no dishonesty in the proposal.

LSAT 134 – Section 3 – Question 11

LSAT 134 - Section 3 - Question 11

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 134 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Leave a Reply Cancel