Are these flaw answer choices EVER right?

[MaximusK796]

So I sometimes see an answer choice in flaw questions that states:

"it fails to consider that, even if an argument's conclusion is false, some of the assumptions used to justify that conclusion may nonetheless be true"

It came up twice in PT 64, in both Section 1, Q 16E, and Section 3, Q 14C, and I believe I've seen it elsewhere too.

My understanding of the answer stem is that for it to be correct, it would have to involve something along these lines:

Person A: He must be rich, he drives a Ferrari. (assuming that driving a Ferrari means you are rich)

Person B: He is actually broke, so driving a Ferrari doesn't mean you are rich.

Is this correct? Has a question like this or one where this answer choice would be valid ever appeared on the LSAT?

[ohthatpatrick]

I don't think that they would ever be right.

They are a reversal of an ACTUAL common flaw, which we call "Unproven vs. Untrue" (others may call it "Absence of Evidence" or "Failure to Prove").

In THAT one, you say
"the author's conclusion may be valid, even if some of the assumptions/justifications used to support it were false".