PrepTest 146

Incorrect. This answer describes a circular argument, and the conclusion here doesn't simply restate a premise.

Incorrect. This answer describes the absence of evidence flaw, but there's no opposing point here for the argument to argue against.

Incorrect. This answer choice doesn't describe a flaw—having evidence stronger than necessary is a good thing!

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Substantial economic growth → Preceded by technological innovation
A ban on fossil fuels would result in technological innovation
Therefore, a ban on fossil fuels would lead to substantial economic growth

Answer Anticipation:
That first statement sets up a requirement for substantial economic growth ("must"), not a sufficient condition for it. However, the argument then treats a situation that would lead to the necessary condition as guaranteeing the sufficient condition. This is an illegal reversal, so the correct answer should similarly treat a necessary condition as establishing a sufficient condition.

Answer Explanation:
This answer describes an illegal reversal, which is exactly what the argument features. It treats a necessary condition for economic growth (tech innovation) as sufficient to bring it about.

Key Takeaway:
Any Errors in Reasoning question that starts talking about requirements is likely messing up the conditional logic. The LSAT will frequently try to hide the conditional logic in language that doesn't seem as formal as conditional logic can frequently feature, but be on the lookout for words like "must," "needs," "has to occur," etc . . .

Incorrect. The stimulus does talk about one event preceding another, but it never states that technological innovation only sometimes precedes technological innovation.