PrepTest 103

Incorrect. Politician P doesn't discuss any other views of her Opponent, so this answer is out of scope. (This answer is a variation of the Attacking the Person flaw.)

Incorrect. Politician P doesn't discuss her Opponent's character, so this answer is out of scope. (This answer describes a more common Attacking the Person flaw.)

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Opponent: The government should raise taxes for education/health care

Politician P: Raising taxes makes taxpayers mad, so the opponent is wrong

Answer Anticipation:
This argument features a rebuttal, so we should analyze what about the rebuttal fails to properly address that argument.

That said, using "argument" here to describe what the Opponent says is a bit off—it's mostly just a recommendation.

When Politician P addresses that argument, she brings up the reaction that the public would have to the Opponent's recommendation—they'd be upset by it. But just because people would be upset by a change doesn't mean that the change shouldn't happen! Politician P relies on people being upset to argue against the wisdom of a proposal without addressing whether that's a valid reason for doing so, so let's find and answer highlighting that shift.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the shift in the argument. Politician P throws out her Opponent's view ("is simply mistaken") based on it making taxpayers upset, which isn't necessarily a good reason to throw out policy!

Key Takeaway:
This takeaway is specifically about answer choice (D). Be careful with any answer that says something is wholly irrelevant. While there are many arguments on the LSAT that rely on premises that aren't necessarily relevant and aren't tied into the conclusion, it's rare that they're bringing up issues that can't possibly be relevant, which would be required for that issue to be wholly irrelevant.

Incorrect. This is a tempting answer, as whether people are upset seems out of scope of whether the policy should be implemented. However, this answer goes too far in stating that it's "wholly irrelevant" to the determination. When talking about public policy, the public's reaction to it very well might be relevant—maybe any policy goes up for a public vote. The issue here is that the Politician doesn't establish that upsetness as relevant and it isn't inherently relevant, not that it can't be relevant.

Incorrect. First, if an argument states that an obligation exists as a premise, there doesn't need to be any support for it existing. Second, the Politician doesn't insist that an obligation exists. At most, she implies that an obligation not to pass legislation that would make people upset exists.