Logical reasoning PrepTest 119 · Section 3 · Question 2

Incorrect. Willett doesn't assume that growth is good, but that a specific argument against allowing unfettered growth is bad. That's two steps removed. Additionally, the argument establishes that the council was justified in not restricting growth as a premise, so it doesn't need support.

Incorrect. Willett does address Benson's reasoning by looking at the response to it in the past. He doesn't attack her personally.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument/Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed/Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
B: Goal - Maintain quality of life. Approach - Restrict growth. Conclusion - I support new zoning regs.

W: This argument has been made twice before, and both times it was wrong.
Therefore, it's still wrong and the regulations should be opposed.

Answer Anticipation:
The question stem tells us to focus on Willett's argument, not Benson's. Since Willett never refers back to something Benson says in a way that requires figuring out what her argument says, we can safely ignore it! The only thing relevant is that her arguments have been made twice before, not what they are.

Willett uses these past instances—and the rejection of Benson's arguments in those instances being justified—to conclude that rejecting the arguments once again is justified. However, that assumes that nothing has changed since the last time the regulations were considered. In using what was justified in the past to conclude that a similar judgment is justified today, the argument is illicitly comparing the past to the present.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the bad comparison between the past and the future. If the situation has changed and there are new reasons to consider restricting growth, then Willett's argument based on an appeal to the past is misguided.

Key Takeaway:
Whenever the LSAT talks about the past, see if it's using that to justify a conclusion about the present or future. Unless there's a premise that specifically allows that to happen validly, it's going to be flawed to make such a jump.

Incorrect. Benson is the one who ties quality of life to restricting growth, not Willett. Willett, therefore, isn't failing to consider that there could be other factors. And, since he concludes that growth shouldn't be restricted, he likely believes that there are other factors since it's unlikely he'd argue in favor of eroding quality of life.

Incorrect. Willett establishes that the city council was justified in reaching their decision against restricting growth, so he doesn't overlook the possibility that they were poorly qualified. Even if they were, their decision was still justified.