Q1 - There has been a long

[IneedLSAThelp]

I was wondering if anyone could explain the difference between answer choice B and E because I find them to be very similar...

[tommywallach]

Hey There INeedLSATHelp,

On these flaw questions, it's always good to have your own sense of what the flaw is before you dive into the answer choices. Let's look at the argument here:

Conclusion: Adopt freeway plan.
Premise: Only choice is adopt plan or do nothing, and doing nothing is no good

Where is there a flaw here? Well, the Mayor gives no evidence that the only options are to adopt the plan or do nothing. Given THAT choice, yes the freeway is a good idea. But why are those the only options?

(A) This is not an error, as using the conservative estimate obviates the need for other estimates (i.e. this is a worst-case scenario, so there's no need to prep for better-case scenarios).

(B) What are the two options here? Build freeway or do nothing. Does the author assume that those two are mutually exclusive? Of course he does! Because they are! This isn't a flaw in logic, this is just the truth. You can't BOTH do nothing AND build a freeway!

(C) The argument says that gridlock would happen within ten years, so this goes against the facts. It's not going to diminish then, but get worse.

(D) Cost is irrelevant.

(E) This is what we predicted. The author presents a choice between two options, but no reason is given why something else couldn't be done (toll roads, widening existing roads, etc.)

Hope that helps!

-t

[asafezrati]

This flaw answer choice directly criticizes a premise. I had expected this kind of questions to attack the connections between the elements...

[jm.kahn]

Could an expert answer why the flaw is attacking a premise?

"The choice is clear: option1 or option 2" is a premise in the argument.

[CCK851]

Hello LSAT experts,

I got this question correct, but I'm having trouble understanding why it's okay to attack the premise. I thought we were always supposed to assume premises to be true and, instead, attack the connection between the premise and the conclusion.

If anyone can shed some light on this, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks!

[JacquelineP303]

I think we can attack the premise here because of the way the stimulus is set out, "Mayor:..." Unlike a normal stimulus where the language is not qualified by a specific speaker, this stimulus is qualified in that everything being said comes from the mayor, so we would view the entire argument from a skeptical lens. If the mayor provides no proof for his/her reasoning (as they fail to do in saying that there are only two options available), then we have no way of knowing that there are truly only two options available.

This is similar to questions that start with "Advertisement:..." where the entire stimulus is questionable given that we have no reason to believe from the start that what the advertisement states is true.

[ohthatpatrick]

Just to clarify for the several posters inquiring:
there is no rule that says "you can't attack a premise".

There is a habit, on LSAT's part, of not attacking a premise 99% or more of the time. But a handful of counterexamples exist in which LSAT weakens the argument by calling into question a premise.

Books and teachers tend to warn people about going after the premise because they know that correct answers almost never do. But there's no official rule against it. If you could disqualify a premise, it would always weaken an argument.