PrepTest 154

Incorrect. This kind of trap answer often catches unsuspecting test-takers just because the verbiage sounds very LSAT-y. If these tend to trip you up, try replacing the vague LSAT-ese with specifics from the stimulus. Do that here and you get something like "Mistakes criticism of the high cost of parking tickets for criticism of the value of parking enforcement." That doesn't actually describe the argument in the stimulus, which didn't actually discuss the consequences of excessive ticket-issuing by the city, so this isn't correct.

Incorrect. This isn't the argument Bauer made. Bauer appealed to the theoretical consequences of failing to enforce parking regulations at all, not to the authority of meter readers.

Incorrect. Again, this would be a fallacy, but it's not the one in the stimulus. The argumentum ad absurdum (appeal to the absurd) in the stimulus is about comparing excessive enforcement to no enforcement, not about tradition.

Incorrect. The argument in the stimulus is comparative, not causal, so a causality fallacy can automatically be eliminated from consideration. This answer choice could only be applied to a stimulus with a causal argument.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Bauer (man, he's really let himself go since 24) says we shouldn't criticize the city for handing out excessive parking tickets, because not enforcing parking regulations at all would be worse.

Answer Anticipation:
This is an exclusivity fallacy. Bauer seems to be suggesting that the only options are excessive enforcement or no enforcement. In other words, a false dichotomy. Expect the correct answer choice to remind us that there's a missing middle ground here.

Answer Explanation:
Yes! Here we go. The likely alternative to excessive enforcement would be reasonable enforcement, not no enforcement. This answer choice correctly highlights the exclusivity fallacy contained in the stimulus.

Key Takeaway:
Fallacies of exclusivity are common on the LSAT. With Flaw questions so prevalent in logical reasoning, and exclusivity issues so prevalent in flaw questions, it behooves you to quickly recognize these. Whenever the middle ground is mysteriously missing from an argument, you're probably dealing with a fallacy of exclusivity, of the false dichotomy kind.