PrepTest 109

Incorrect. If Congleton was forced to assign certain people to the project, then her motives towards the project's success can't be read from those decisions. This answer points out an assumption of the argument, so we can rule it out (Remember, this is a Bizarro Errors in Reasoning).

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Bizarro Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
L: Did Congleton assign the best people to the project?
W: Yes.
L: So you lied when you said Congleton wanted the project to fail.

Answer Anticipation:
A Bizarro Errors in Reasoning question is very flawed, as there are at least four answers describing something wrong with it. As such, it can be pretty hard to anticipate everything.

However, as with all flaw—based questions, we should focus on identifying elements that suggest specific flaws. And here, there's a big one—it discusses Congleton's motive. The Witness claimed that Congleton wanted the project to fail; the Lawyer, in calling that a lie, believes that Congleton didn't want the project to fail.

What's this based on? The staffing decisions—Congleton put the best people on the project. Therefore, any answer that speaks to Congleton's motive, especially with how that relates to her staffing decisions, could be pointing out a flaw here. Let's head to the answers with that in mind.

Answer Explanation:
We don't learn whether the project failed or not, so we can't use this answer to draw any conclusions about Congleton's motive. Since this answer doesn't tie into the argument, it's out of scope and thus is correct.

Key Takeaway:
Bizarro Errors in Reasoning questions are rare, but they do show up on occasion. When they do, they tend to fall into one of two categories. They either have a ton of flaws (and they tend to be on the more obvious side), or they have one big flaw and the answers play into it in multiple ways. This was an example of the latter (though one answer did describe a second flaw).

Also, a lie on the LSAT requires intentionality. Being wrong with a statement—even if you could or should have known the truth—isn't a lie. Only an intentionally false statement is a lie on the exam.

Incorrect. If Congleton assigned the best people to the project, but they all had giant egos and thus would butt heads, she could have assigned the best people while still wanting the project to fail. This is a possibility the lawyer overlooks, so this answer points out an error in his reasoning.

Incorrect. This answer doesn't address the Congleton issue, but it does address the accusation that the Witness is lying. If the Witness didn't reach the conclusion that Congleton wanted the project to succeed based on her staffing decisions, then saying otherwise wasn't a lie. Since this answer points out a flaw in that portion of the Lawyer's argument, we can rule it out.

Incorrect. This answer establishes that there are other considerations in a project's success that Congleton could have used to cause it to fail despite assigning the best people. If she didn't give them enough of a budget or a long enough time to succeed, then she could have wanted the project to fail despite her staffing decisions. This answer therefore highlights a possibility the Lawyer's argument doesn't consider, so we can eliminate it.