Flawed ReasoningDiff: Medium

Logic Breakdown

Passage Summary: A politician thinks that because almost everyone he represents hates high taxes, they will definitely be on board with his specific plan to cut taxes for corporations.

Conclusion: The constituents will likely support the legislator's new bill to reduce corporate income taxes.

Reasoning: A staff poll revealed that an overwhelming majority (97%) of constituents are against high taxes in general.

Analysis: The argument suffers from a classic part-to-whole or general-to-specific flaw. Just because people dislike 'high taxes' in the abstract doesn't mean they support every specific tax cut, especially one targeted at corporations rather than individuals. Look for an answer that highlights this shift from a general sentiment to a specific, potentially unrelated policy. It's a bit like assuming that because everyone hates being cold, they'll all agree to buy a specific brand of electric blanket.

Passage Stimulus

Passage Redacted

Unlock Full Passage

15.

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

Correct Answer
B
B identifies the central gap: the argument assumes constituents view the current corporate income tax as high. Without that, opposition to “high taxes” doesn’t imply support for cutting this particular tax.
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