PrepTest 155

Incorrect. The argument is about what a candidate supports, not what a politician enacts. This answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. Drawing opposite conclusions for different groups isn't inherently a flaw. It's only a flaw if the opposite conclusions are drawn based on the same information—that would be contradictory logic.

Incorrect. The conclusion is about a very specific subset of voters; it's not a general conclusion about patterns of voting. Additionally, 10 years of election data could very well be a sufficient sample.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
A certain policy is correlated with a higher vote share in one part of the district, but there's no pattern of impact in any other part of the district. Therefore, adopting that policy proposal will result in a candidate getting more votes.

Answer Anticipation:
The causal language in the conclusion "in order to" should have led you to immediately thinking this could be a correlation vs. causation flaw. The premises are correlative—a group has two characteristics (lives in an area and voted for a candidate with a certain policy). The correct answer here should reflect the causal error in reasoning.
Answer Explanation:
This answer is the generic causal flaw language, and it's the correct answer.
Key Takeaway:
If you're tackling a question that has an error in reasoning and a causal conclusion, odds are good it's a causal flaw.

Incorrect. The data was collected over ten years, but only one data point is ten years old. Additionally, drawing a conclusion based on data from a period of time ago isn't inherently erroneous—generally, the LSAT will give you a reason to believe something significant changed in that time period if an answer like this one is correct. For instance, if this answer ended with, " . . . ten years old, before the gentrification of the northeastern part of the district."