PrepTest 129

Incorrect. The only group making an argument other than the City Council Member is the Senior Guild, and the City Council Member agrees that their argument is persuasive—she says that they do seem to deserve the exception. Since the City Council Member agrees with their conclusion, he can't be distorting and attacking that argument. She instead attacks what would happen after that exception is granted.

Incorrect. The City Council Member first doesn't reject a claim made by the Senior Guild—instead, she rejects their request. Second, she doesn't attack the Senior Guild in any way—the conclusion to reject their request is based on external factors, not the Guild itself.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
The Senior Guild seems to deserve an exception to a rule, but if we do that, we'll keep granting more and more exceptions until there's anarchy, so we should reject their request.

Answer Anticipation:
While not a common error in reasoning on the LSAT, this argument falls into one that we often see in real life—the "slippery slope" argument. In this type of argument, an initial decision is seen as leading to increasingly "big" decisions that spiral out of control and eventually result in an undesirable outcome.

This is flawed because there's no guarantee that this chain of events will continue to spiral out of control! The City Council Member states that the Senior Guild appears to deserve the exception to the rule—if the Council limits itself to granting exceptions to those who deserve them, it can prevent these exceptions from spiraling out of control. Additionally, if things start to get unwieldy, the Council can always change the rules of granting exceptions. In assuming that the initial exception will cause this chain to reach problematic levels, the argument commits a flaw.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the slippery slope nature of the argument. It assumes that granting one exception will cause more and more exceptions to be granted, until there is "anarchy." In highlighting that the City Council Member makes assumptions about a causal chain spiraling out of control, this answer choice reflects the error in her reasoning.

Key Takeaway:
Slippery slope arguments—and accusations thereof—are much more common in the real world than they are on the LSAT, but there are a few rare occasions where they appear. In general, when they show up, the correct answer is framed in causal terms—it assumes that a certain event will set off a causal chain without establishing that that is the case.

Incorrect. This answer can be tempting because the City Council Member at one point concedes that the Senior Guild's case "does appear to deserve the exception," before concluding that the request must be denied. However, first, that would be a premise contradicting a conclusion, not two premises contradicting each other, as this answer choice states. Second, in stating that the Guild does "appear" to "deserve" the exception, the Member is using weak enough language to pivot away from it.

Incorrect. The argument talks about the Guild's exception as appearing to be deserved, and it then talks about approving future exceptions that are both deserved and undeserved, so it does make that distinction.