Flawed ReasoningDiff: Medium

Logic Breakdown

Passage Summary: A police captain argues that because his officers didn't take the expensive gifts that the chief defines as 'graft,' any claims that his officers are corrupt must be false.

Conclusion: The accusations of corruption within the precinct are entirely without merit.

Reasoning: The police chief defined graft specifically as receiving cash or items worth over $100, and the captain is certain no officer in his precinct has accepted such gifts.

Analysis: The captain is making a classic logical error by treating a sufficient condition as a necessary one. Just because the chief says gifts over $100 *count* as graft doesn't mean that is the *only* way graft can occur. The captain's argument fails to account for the possibility of officers taking smaller bribes or engaging in other forms of illegal behavior. Look for an answer that points out the captain is ignoring other potential forms of graft.

Passage Stimulus

Passage Redacted

Unlock Full Passage

18.

The reasoning in the police captain's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument

Correct Answer
B
The argument fails to consider other instances or forms of graft beyond gifts valued over $100. Showing that no officer took gifts over $100 does not rule out all graft, so the accusations could still be true for other kinds of graft.
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
Explore Perfection Plus for full LSAT prep