Flawed ReasoningDiff: Medium
Logic Breakdown
Passage Summary: The lawyer says stealing is taking something you know belongs to someone else. Since Meyers didn't think the compost belonged to anyone, he didn't do anything wrong by taking it.
Conclusion: It was not morally wrong for Meyers to take the compost from the public garden.
Reasoning: Stealing is defined as taking something you have reason to believe belongs to someone else, and since Meyers did not believe the compost belonged to anyone, his action was not wrong.
Analysis: The lawyer's argument is a textbook example of 'denying the antecedent.' The premise states: If you think it's someone else's property → It is wrong. The lawyer then observes that the 'if' part is missing (Meyers didn't think it was someone else's) and concludes the 'then' part must also be false. This is a logical error because there could be many other reasons why taking the compost is wrong, such as it being a violation of public trust or city ordinances, regardless of Meyers' personal beliefs. Look for an answer that describes this formal logic error in abstract terms.
Conclusion: It was not morally wrong for Meyers to take the compost from the public garden.
Reasoning: Stealing is defined as taking something you have reason to believe belongs to someone else, and since Meyers did not believe the compost belonged to anyone, his action was not wrong.
Analysis: The lawyer's argument is a textbook example of 'denying the antecedent.' The premise states: If you think it's someone else's property → It is wrong. The lawyer then observes that the 'if' part is missing (Meyers didn't think it was someone else's) and concludes the 'then' part must also be false. This is a logical error because there could be many other reasons why taking the compost is wrong, such as it being a violation of public trust or city ordinances, regardless of Meyers' personal beliefs. Look for an answer that describes this formal logic error in abstract terms.
Passage Stimulus
Passage Redacted
Unlock Full Passage21.The reasoning in the lawyer's argument is flawed in that the argument
Correct Answer
C
C: Correct. It identifies the mistaken move of taking a sufficient condition for wrongness to be necessary, leading to the invalid inference that the absence of that condition makes the act not wrong.
Upgrade Your Prep
Ready to go beyond free explanations?
LSAT Perfection is the #1 modern LSAT prep platform, trusted by thousands of students for comprehensive test strategies, advanced drilling, and full analytics on every PrepTest.
Detailed explanations for 59 PrepTests
Advanced drillset builder
Personalized analytics
Built-in Wrong Answer Journal