LSAT 102 – Section 4 – Question 04

LSAT 102 - Section 4 - Question 04

June 1998

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 0:56

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
PT102 S4 Q04
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Value Judgment +ValJudg
A
3%
162
B
96%
166
C
1%
153
D
0%
169
E
0%
155
120
120
132
 +Easiest 146.127 +SubsectionMedium

Columnist: The country is presently debating legislation that, if passed, would force manufacturers to increase the number of paid vacation days for employees, to pay higher overtime wages, and to pay all day-care expenses for children of each employee. This legislation is being supported by members of groups that have resorted to violent tactics in the past, and by individuals who are facing indictment on tax-evasion charges. We must defeat this legislation and what it stands for.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The columnist concludes that we must defeat a piece of legislation that would improve workers’ rights. Why? Because some supporters of the legislation belong to unsavory groups, or are facing tax-eviction charges.

Identify and Describe Flaw
This is a cookie-cutter “ad hominem” flaw, where the argument attacks the source of a position rather than the position itself. In this case, the columnist is casting doubt on the character of the legislation’s supporters, instead of addressing the merits of the legislation.

A
attacks legislation by calling into question the integrity of the originators of the legislation
The columnist isn’t calling into question the character of the “originators” who introduced this legislation, but rather that of its supporters.
B
assails legislation on the basis of the questionable character of supporters of the legislation
The columnist concludes that we should reject legislation just because some of its supporters belong to violent groups or may have evaded taxes—in other words, because of the supporters’ questionable character.
C
attempts to discredit legislation by appealing to public sentiment for those who would be adversely affected
The columnist doesn’t bring up the possibility that anyone would be adversely affected by the legislation.
D
presupposes that legislation is bad legislation whenever it has only a small number of supporters outside the country’s national legislative body
The columnist never proposes a rule of when legislation is bad legislation. The argument also doesn’t ever mention how many or how few supporters the legislation has, whether inside or outside the legislative body.
E
rejects legislation on the grounds that its supporters act inconsistently in seeking to place burdens on manufacturers upon whose business success the supporters depend
The columnist doesn’t accuse the legislation’s supporters of acting inconsistently. The argument also never mentions the issue of burdening manufacturers, or whether the manufacturers’ success is important to anyone.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 102 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply