PT57 S3 Q8 Forum

[lawschool2014hopeful]

I am sort of confused about the right answer C) "Presume".... But isnt it just a bad argument? I feel like LSAC is equating presumption with bad argument here, as the argument is trying to make the connection from 1 event leading to a sequence of events.

[agglomeration]

So "presume" means to suppose something is the case on the basis of a probability. The AC is saying that the city council member supposes that one event will lead to a particular sequence of events.

Basically the argument is one entire slippery slope fallacy. Going through all the AC's.

A)its not distorting any argument. The stim even says "their case does appear to deserve this exception." but then it goes on to list potential consequences of what would happen if they did give the exception.-- eliminate

B)eliminate. No where in the Stim did they mention the source of the argument being a problem.

D)I don't see any contradiction in the argument- eliminate. (on a side note-- i don't think i have ever seen a question whose correct AC was this answer. If anyone has, i would love to know which)

E)This is a good trap answer-but it isn't what is actually wrong with the argument. What's wrong with it, is the use of the slippery slope leading.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

hope this helps

[Christine (MLSAT)]

I am sort of confused about the right answer C) "Presume".... But isnt it just a bad argument? I feel like LSAC is equating presumption with bad argument here, as the argument is trying to make the connection from 1 event leading to a sequence of events.

The LSAT often uses the language "presumes without providing justification" to mean, simply, "assumes" on flaw questions. And on a fundamental level, arguments are flawed when they assume things.

So, if the argument makes an assumption in order to get to the conclusion, that assumption can be characterized as the flaw of the argument.

[lawschool2014hopeful]

I am sort of confused about the right answer C) "Presume".... But isnt it just a bad argument? I feel like LSAC is equating presumption with bad argument here, as the argument is trying to make the connection from 1 event leading to a sequence of events.

The LSAT often uses the language "presumes without providing justification" to mean, simply, "assumes" on flaw questions. And on a fundamental level, arguments are flawed when they assume things.

So, if the argument makes an assumption in order to get to the conclusion, that assumption can be characterized as the flaw of the argument.

Yea but, the argument is wasnt assuming the connection, it was making the jump explicitly, although a bad one.

[Manhattan LSAT Noah]

I am sort of confused about the right answer C) "Presume".... But isnt it just a bad argument? I feel like LSAC is equating presumption with bad argument here, as the argument is trying to make the connection from 1 event leading to a sequence of events.

The LSAT often uses the language "presumes without providing justification" to mean, simply, "assumes" on flaw questions. And on a fundamental level, arguments are flawed when they assume things.

So, if the argument makes an assumption in order to get to the conclusion, that assumption can be characterized as the flaw of the argument.

Yea but, the argument is wasnt assuming the connection, it was making the jump explicitly, although a bad one.

I think the jump to the anarchy is particularly suspect. I don't see lots of ordinance exceptions as leading to this:




You touch on three issues in my opinion:
1. assumptions are sometimes so "duh" that it feels like the author actually stated it.
2. The answer includes "without warrant" to drive home the idea that the author makes this jump, but doesn't support it.
3. We have to trust correct answers as teachers as we prep. Since the correct answer uses "presumed without sufficient warrant" we know that this argument is an example, in LSAC's opinion, of an argument with an assumption.

[lawschool2014hopeful]

Hm I suppose I can be swayed by a wider understanding of presumption, by taking it the account sometimes is just so "duh". But I feel like E somehow touches on the point? The argument stated that they would grant a well-deserved exception, to which it begins the slippery slope argument, but doesnt E capture that? That granting a well-deserve exception does not apply to those that are not well-deserved?

[Manhattan LSAT Noah]

Hm I suppose I can be swayed by a wider understanding of presumption, by taking it the account sometimes is just so "duh". But I feel like E somehow touches on the point? The argument stated that they would grant a well-deserved exception, to which it begins the slippery slope argument, but doesnt E capture that? That granting a well-deserve exception does not apply to those that are not well-deserved?

I think the issue with what you're saying is that the argument doesn't need to distinguish between the two. It's the granting of an exception that starts the slippery slope. The fact that the first one is deserved seems like a concession to me.

I hope that helps.