Logical reasoning PrepTest 152 · Section 4 · Question 16

While the Editorialist does blame Kramer's bad conclusion on the allegation of disgruntled coal miners, she doesn't absolve Kramer of guilt. This answer would be correct if the argument had said that, since one group is guilty, another can't be. That is a flaw—maybe two parties are both guilty—but it's not the flaw here.

The argument does conclude a person's statement is false, but it does so based on the argument having shaky facts, not on it impugning the coal industry.

The coal miners might have an ulterior motive here, but there's no indication that Kramer does. This ad hominem answer just misses the mark.

There's nothing indicating any type of sufficient or necessary conditions here, so this answer, while describing a potential flaw, isn't describing this argument.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Kramer is wrong, because the evidence Kramer used to back up his conclusion is wrong.

Answer Anticipation:
Classic error in reasoning. Just because someone makes a bad argument doesn't make them wrong. One could argue that since Die Hard isn't a Christmas movie, it's a good movie. Their premise being wrong (which it is here) doesn't make their conclusion wrong (it isn't here).

If the Editorialist had concluded that Kramer made a bad argument, or his conclusion is invalid, or his conclusion might be false, this would be a valid argument. But the certainty of determining a conclusion is false because the argument behind it has been shown to be bad is a common error in reasoning.

Answer Explanation:
Perfect answer, and one that you'll potentially see again. This answer describes a common error in reasoning committed on the LSAT—proving an argument is invalid, and concluding that it is false.

Key Takeaway:
When working on Errors in Reasoning questions, it's important to start to notice the repeating errors. If you can start to see these patterns, and the answer choices that describe them, you can increase both timing and accuracy. It can be helpful to keep track of the questions where you note these common errors, and compare arguments that commit the same ones, to hone your ability to spot them, even when they shift topic.