Logical reasoning PrepTest 129 · Section 1 · Question 10

Incorrect. The debate isn't over whether the approach will work to achieve the goals; it's over whether the failure of the approach in achieving its primary goals is indicative of those being "fake" goals. As such, whether it achieves its secondary goals is immaterial.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Declared goal - Eliminate overcrowding and alleviate congestion to improve the mall's business and image
Approach - Prohibit loitering at the mall
Letter's opinion of approach - Those goals can't be the real goals
Reasoning - The approach wouldn't accomplish those goals

Answer Anticipation:
This argument features a common pattern—there's a goal and an approach, and the author weighs in on the goal/approach. However, most arguments that follow this pattern have the author stating whether the approach will work. Here, however, the Letter questions the goals of the city council. And this brings us back to another common concept tested on the LSAT—a goal is just another word for motive.

Here, the Letter says that the stated goals of the city council can't be their actual goals. Why not? Because even if their approach is fully implemented, their goals won't be reached.

However, just because an action won't achieve a goal, that doesn't mean that the goal can't be what's really motivating the action. It's possible that the city council is misguided or wrong about what they believe the approach will accomplish! The outcomes of an action and the motives behind that action aren't necessarily the same thing, so we should look for an answer establishing that.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the difference between the outcome of an action and the motives behind it. A certain goal can motivate an action even if that action will fail to achieve the goal. The group promoting the approach for that goal could be mistaken/wrong about what their approach will achieve despite truly wanting to reach that goal.

Key Takeaway:
Two takeaways here. First, goals are motives, and motives are generally key to a question that discusses them. Second, these argument patterns that we see—e.g., goal/approach here—are good to know to help us structure our approach. When something breaks the common pattern—here, the author discussed the goals instead of judging the efficacy of the approach, the latter of which is what usually happens in this pattern—that divergence from the norm can usually help focus us on the relevant aspect of the stimulus.

Incorrect. The Letter doesn't say that the council's argument should be rejected because it's being made by the council—there's no attack on the "person" here. The Letter rejects their claim because their actions won't achieve the goals made in their claim, which isn't the same as rejecting it because of who made it.

Incorrect. The conclusion of the argument is that the stated goals can't be the true goals, not that the proposed action shouldn't be done or wouldn't have benefits, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. There's no note that any specific action is necessary for achieving the stated goals, so this illegal reversal answer is incorrect.