Q19 - Politician: Of the candidates running

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Breakdown:
Thompson is the only candidate who opposes higher taxes. Many believe the best candidate is the one who opposes higher taxes. Therefore, Thompson is the best candidate.

Answer Anticipation:
Hold on there, LSAT. Just because many people believe something doesn't make it true. There are plenty of things many people believe that are demonstrably false.

This is a classic Perception vs. Reality flaw. Whenever I see language about what people think/believe/opine, I immediately think of this flaw. Any statement showing these people to be wrong will weaken the argument.

Correct answer:
(A)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) And we get it right off the bat. This answer choice straight up says the people who form the basis for the argument are wrong, thus weakening this argument.

(B) Careful! The argument is about who would make a better leader, not necessarily a good leader. If you picked this answer, you shifted between relative terms (in the argument) and absolute terms (in the answer).

(C) Out of scope. Since the argument is based on what many people believe, and what they believe is a strong and blanket statement about opposing taxes and better leadership, other factors aren't relevant.

(D) Out of scope. While this answer choice does suggest that people who don't oppose higher taxes can be adequate leaders, the conclusion is about Thompson being the best of the current crop. Similar to (B), this answer jumps from a relative statement to an absolute one.

(E) Out of scope. Hardworking? You can work hard and be a good leader; you can work hard and be a terrible leader.

Takeaway/Pattern:
When a conclusion features a comparison, there will frequently be several answers that deal with an absolute measurement. These are generally trap answers.

#officialexplanation

[tuf58975]

Question: but the first answer A still mentions the "Good leader"as well, Why it is not as wrong as the second answer(B) as illustrated in the above explanation? Is there another way pointing out the flaw of answer B?
Help needed
Appreciated a lot!!

[andrewgong01]

Question: but the first answer A still mentions the "Good leader"as well, Why it is not as wrong as the second answer(B) as illustrated in the above explanation? Is there another way pointing out the flaw of answer B?
Help needed
Appreciated a lot!!

I think it is because in Choice "A" it is saying contributing to good leadership so it does not commit you to saying that it makes you a "Good" leader; rather it commits you to saying that it helps in you becoming a good leader. In other words, unlike choice b, choice a, only states that it points you in the direction of being a good leader, which in turn points you to the direction of being the best leader because the best leader must be more good than the worst leader even if the best leader is mediocre at best.

Choice "B" commits you to saying that it is a factor in making you become "good" on an absolute level. It does not allow you to commit to it being on a spectrum on the direction of being more and more good; rather it is just saying you are "good".

[tuf58975]

Thank you! That makes more sense:)

[HelenH783]

I was tempted by answer C-- I think having "For one thing" in the stimulus opens the door to "issues other than taxes" being relevant to the argument. Thoughts? Help?

Thanks!

[ohthatpatrick]

When I read the original argument, I had two primary reactions:
1. Cool "many would agree" stat, bro. First of all, they could be wrong. Second of all, they could be massively outweighed by many who would disagree.

2. Even if Thompson is a superior candidate in regards to his position on taxes, he might be so much worse on other issues that he's NOT the best candidate available.

And when I look the answers, I think that (A), (B), and (C) all weaken somewhat (which is weird, right? We normally don't have to compare the MAGNITUDE of strengthening or weakening, but sometimes we do)

I'm looking for the most damaging of these three.

(C) is dealing with my 2nd line of objection -- "even if T is better when it comes to taxes, what if he's worse when it comes to other things?"

(C) doesn't actually say that he's WORSE when it comes to other issues. It says that he's questionable, but since there's no comparative language, there's no way to understand whether he scores better/worse/same than the other candidates running on these other issues. (C) definitely raises SOME doubt, so it could be a correct answer if there were nothing else that weakened.

(A) and (B) are both addressing the connection between "position on taxes" and "good leadership".

Which is more damning to the argument .... to say
(B): Your position on taxes can't 100% guarantee that you'll be a good leader
or to say
(A): Your position on taxes is wholly irrelevant to whether you'll be a good leader.

(A) completely removes the author's evidence. The ONLY leg that the author was standing on in endorsing Thompson as the best leader was T's position on taxes. If one's position on taxes has nothing to do with their quality of leadership, then the author has literally presented no relevant evidence.

With (B), the author's evidence can't be PROOF of her conclusion, but it could still potentially be very strong support for it.

[SouravK576]

(A) and (B) are both addressing the connection between "position on taxes" and "good leadership".

Which is more damning to the argument .... to say
(B): Your position on taxes can't 100% guarantee that you'll be a good leader
or to say
(A): Your position on taxes is wholly irrelevant to whether you'll be a good leader.

(A) completely removes the author's evidence. The ONLY leg that the author was standing on in endorsing Thompson as the best leader was T's position on taxes. If one's position on taxes has nothing to do with their quality of leadership, then the author has literally presented no relevant evidence.

With (B), the author's evidence can't be PROOF of her conclusion, but it could still potentially be very strong support for it.

@ohthatpatrick

Can't thank you enough for this crystal clear differentiation b\w so closely matched options A and B, and for providing a clarity on the point that if both of the shortlisted options weaken, then the one that completely breaks down the conclusion wins.

Also a note of gratitude for your ability to explain fine nuances related to a trap option in a way that one can practically retain that understanding/note/takeaway as a pattern for future such traps.

Bonus: Appreciate the way you take a stand even on official ques. & provide convincing reasoning for the same.
ex: https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/foru ... tml#p40093


I rarely post in forums, but your excellent efforts warranted one. Cheers!