Logical reasoning PrepTest 155 · Section 1 · Question 14

Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Method of Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Jones says a budget deficit is good for the country because it keeps the government from spending too much. Espinosa responds that this is like saying maxing out your credit cards is good for your personal finances, because then you have to stop spending.

We're asked to describe Espinosa's method of reasoning.

Strategy Overview:

1. Argument or facts? Always argument, so identify the premises and conclusion.
2. How do the premises support the conclusion? Phrase it in your own words… do they make an analogy, give an example, rebut a counterargument, appeal to an expert, cite a study, offer an alternate explanation?
3. Anticipate how the correct answer choice might describe this method of reasoning, within the context of the specific argument being made.
4. Look for an answer choice that accurately characterizes the argument.
   1. Avoid trap answers that...
      1. Describe a real method of reasoning, but not one found in this argument
      2. Use key words from the stimulus, but use them to describe a method of reasoning not used in the argument
      3. Describe a similar argument about the same topic that reaches the opposite conclusion

Answer Anticipation:

Arguing by analogy is a ubiquitous method of reasoning on the LSAT. Analogies are comparisons made to persuade. Analogies are formed by showing that two or more things share one property to convince others that the two things must share at least one other property. Analogies can be used to persuade someone of something's merit (e.g., "X and Y both share this property. X is also good, so Y must be good too!") or its fault (e.g., "X and Y both share this property. X is also bad, so Y must be bad too!").

In this case, Espinosa uses an analogy to show the fault of Jones's reasoning. Espinosa shows some similarities between budget deficits and maxing out your credit cards — they both involve accruing debt, and they may both curb excessive spending — before claiming that maxing out your credit cards is obviously poor financial planning. The implicit conclusion is that budget deficits must also be the result of poor financial planning. So this argument is a variation of "X and Y both share this property. X is also bad, so Y must be bad too!" The correct answer will probably state that Espinosa is using an analogy to illustrate the fault in another person's argument.

Answer Choice Explanation:
Right up top, an accurate description of the use of analogy to expose a fault in an opponent's argument. The keywords "analogous" and "fallacious" suggest that this is a good choice. And we can prove this answer choice is correct because we can neatly slot the specifics of Espinosa's argument into this answer choice. Espinosa provides an argument that is analogous to the one given by Jones (i.e., claiming that reaching the credit limit on your credit cards is a good thing for your finances). And Espinosa's analogous argument is clearly fallacious (because maxing out credit cards is clearly poor financial management). So this one perfectly descripes Espinosa's method of reasoning, and is correct.

Key Takeaway:
Analogies are among the more common argument forms that show up on Logical Reasoning questions, including Method of Reasoning questions. Remember, analogies are made when a speaker asserts that two or more things share one property to convince others that the two things must share at least one other property.

"Presupposing what it set out to prove" describes circular reasoning (an argument in which the premise and conclusion are logically identical), which isn't found in Jones's argument. And Espinosa didn't allege that Jones used circular reasoning. So this misdescribes both parties' arguments.

Espinosa didn't cite any empirical evidence. That would be something like a study or statistics. So, this isn't an accurate description of Espinosa's reasoning.

This answer choice describes an ad hominem fallacy, which Espinosa did not commit. Espinosa never claimed Jones's reasoning was flawed because Jones is bad at controlling their personal financials.

Espinosa didn't say that Jones's conclusion was too general or overbroad. That would require Espinosa to suggest that a budget deficit may be suitable for some countries' finances but not others. Instead, Espinosa illustrated by analogy that Jones's argument was fallacious. So this doesn't describe Espinosa's reasoning.