PrepTest 143

Incorrect. The Captain's argument is based on what he knows about each officer in his precinct ("no officer"), and the conclusion is about that precinct—so the sample isn't limited.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
PC: Gift/cash over $100 → Graft
PC's precinct Ð not Gift/cash over $100
Therefore Ð not Graft

Answer Anticipation:
The chief of police establishes one thing that counts as graft—gifts/cash over $100. However, the Police Captain reaches a conclusion that anyone not accepting gifts/cash over $100 isn't engaged in graft. That's an illegal negation of the argument—there could be other things that count as graft, as well.

Answer Explanation:
The chief brings up one set of facts sufficient to show graft, but she doesn't rule out other potential situations that would count as graft. The Captain, however, treats the lack of that one set of facts as establishing there is no graft. That's flawed logic, as this answer highlights.

Key Takeaway:
This argument uses an uncommon type of statement to provide the basis for a conditional—it states that one thing "count[s] as" another. If that's the case, then the former is sufficient to establish the latter. There are many examples of this when the LSAT is talking about the elements of a crime or some type of law/statute, so be on the lookout for it!

Incorrect. The premise is that the officers haven't taken such gifts, so the conclusion is about their actions, not their character.

Incorrect. There's no mention of corruption in the stimulus, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. The Captain's claim that his offers haven't taken any such gifts doesn't contradict the conclusion that they're not guilty of graft.