Logical reasoning PrepTest 153 · Section 3 · Question 26

Incorrect. This falsely accuses the stimulus. The employee used all of their key terms perfectly consistently throughout their argument.

Incorrect. Not applicable, since the argument directly tells us that the higher-ranking employees' behavior was the same as Vernon's, if not worse. So if the behavior was sufficient to justify firing, it's sufficient to justify firing everyone involved.

Incorrect. This is another of those pesky ways the LSAT likes to rephrase "circular reasoning" as a trap answer. This is the "it's never Lupus" of the LSAT. It's almost never circular reasoning!

Incorrect. Close, and an appealing trap, but the employee didn't do this. They admitted that, at least in this case, identically unprofessional behavior hasn't always resulted in the consequence of firing.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Vernon deserves his job back, an employee claims. His behavior was unprofessional and his firing was justified, but several higher-ranking employees were involved in the same incident. They behaved just as badly as Vernon did, and they weren't fired. So, for the sake of consistency, Vernon should be re-hired.

Answer Anticipation:
Let's picture Vernon's behavior being basically as unprofessional as it gets. Like, let's say he painted a graphic obscenity on the side of the building where he worked. If several other higher-ranking employees were also involved in this incident, it would certainly be inconsistent to fire only Vernon. But is re-hiring him really a good idea? The dude painted an obscenity on his office building! Maybe they could just fire the higher-ranking participants, too. That would be equally consistent, and probably better for morale. This is a variant on a fallacy of exclusivity: the existence of one way to be consistent in treatment of employees doesn't mean there's no other way to be consistent in treatment of employees.

Answer Explanation:
That's more like it. Why rehire Vernon if firing him was justified? It seems like firing everyone involved in "the incident" is warranted. At least, it's worth considering before advocating to rehire ol' unprofessional Vernon.

Key Takeaway:
Fallacies of exclusivity, and all sorts of variations on the theme, crop up on almost every LSAT LR section. This is one flaw you have to know backwards and forwards. If it's tripping you up, memorize some examples you make up based on your own life. You can use TV characters or people in your group of friends, to make your examples more visual and memorable.