Q19 - Politician: Union leaders argue that

[mshinners]

Question Type:
ID the Flaw

Stimulus Breakdown:
Politician: Legislators should reject the argument of the union leaders because they would benefit from the argument taking hold.

Answer Anticipation:
Whenever the speaker in an argument questions someone's motives rather than discussing their argument, there's an Ad Hominem flaw.

Correct answer:
(C)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Degree. This answer does bring up an Ad Hominem flaw (discrediting an argument because of who made it), but the conclusion is only about one argument, not every argument made by the union leaders. By stating "cast doubt on all of the viewpoints", this answer choice goes too far.

(B) Degree. The argument relies on the motivations being self-serving ("vested interest"), not being clearly discernible. Someone might have clearly discernible, altruistic motives, and the politician might suggest listening to their arguments.

(C) Bingo. This answer isn't phrased as clearly as possible, but "circumstances potentially affecting" in this case is their self-serving motivations.

(D) Out of scope. The conclusion is about this specific argument, so an answer about alternative arguments is out of the scope of this argument.

(E) Premise booster. The argument already states that union leaders are making the argument; this answer ups the ante to all leaders (though that is already implied). Also, the conclusion is about the argument, not the number of leaders making it.

Takeaway/Pattern:
Motivations are important on the LSAT. If an argument discusses motivations, pay attention! The LSAT will generally either say someone has selfish motivation as a means of discrediting them (Ad Hominem flaw), or treat the outcome as being dependent on the movitation (Subjective vs. Object/Perception vs. Reality flaw).

#officialexplanation

[emossor]

Originally chose B. I think after seeing the correct answer I understand why it is right.

Core:
Union leaders dont like multinational control because it reduces wages
Since they have vested interest in seeing high wages, they would want to convince them against multinational control

Conclusion: Reject their argument

Flaw: Uses their motives as a reason to discredit the argument.


To simplify it I read it as
Leaders want high wages so they oppose the multinational control
But of course they want that... they are union leaders
So..... ignore them.


A) Close on first pass but it says "certain people are union MEMBERS"... Maybe union leaders are members but you cant know that. It also goes further saying "sufficient to cast double on ALL viewpoints...." We dont know anything about the other views. Gone

B) Looked ok on first pass. Unreliable source of information? Seems a bit different but it sounds like it is a decent match to an attack on the motives of the leaders.

C) also looked good.

D) Who cares if it is the ONLY argument? It isnt stated if it is

E) It does not mention if leaders of ALL unions etc... bad

Between B and C, looking at B I originally went with this but upon closer inspection it mentions "unreliable source of information". There really isnt any information here, the core is about rejecting them based on their motives. B says we clearly know the motives so their information is unreliable... so what? Why reject the argument? This isnt the flaw.

C does this. The circumstances affecting their argument (them being in a leadership position of the union) is enough to discredit the argument. At first the "circumstances" seemed to throw me off but this is by far the closest match. Reject the argument because of their position.

[betsy.abraham]

The "circumstances potentially affecting" I'm seeing mentioned here is in regards to the increasing multinational control of manufacturing which in turn leads to a decrease in workers avg wages. The union leaders are arguing for wages to remain high. So this circumstance (inc multinational control) is potentially affecting their argument for wages to remain high.

[LukeM22]

Ok, so the issue I have with crossing off A is that, while, yes, the stimulus didn't explicitly state "we should reject every single viewpoint they have", if A) was the actual flaw, I'd have difficulty imagining how the stimulus would be different. How can we know for certain that A is not also correct? I feel like A includes C, with the "circumstances potentially affecting the union leaders argument" as" the mere fact that certain people are union members".

[ohthatpatrick]

I don't think there's ever a reason on LSAT to ask yourself, "IF this answer were correct, would the stimulus then make sense?"

And when one answer is embedded in another answer, the more limited answer would almost always be right. If answer (A) implies answer (C), then you would pick choice (C), since there can't be two correct answers.

But beyond those two rationales, remind yourself that you can always ask the same two questions of every Flaw answer choice:
1. IS this descriptively accurate? (if it isn't, get rid of it)
2. DOES this matter to the logic? (if it doesn't, get rid of it)

When we're doing the 1st filter on (A), we're asking ourselves, "DID the author act like if you know that people are union members, that's all you need to know to doubt every viewpoint they express?"

No, the author acted like if you know that these people are union LEADERS, then they have a vested interest in high wages, so you should doubt THEIR VIEWPOINT ON A THING RELATED TO HIGH WAGES.

If I argued, "We need someone incredibly big and strong to carry all these cinderblocks 800 ft down the road. Since Terry is a woman, we'll have to find someone else to do it."

Can we say my reasoning flaw was
(A) treats the mere fact that Terry is a woman as sufficient to cast doubt on her ability to do any task
?

Of course not. I wasn't calling Terry or women useless. My flaw was just assuming that a woman couldn't be incredibly big and strong.

MORAL TO THE STORY: care deeply about extreme language in answer choices

Hope this helps.

[LawrenceR550]

Chose B because I did not take "Circumstances potentially affecting the union's leaders' argument" as being the same as having a "vested interest." In one case you're more of a victim, and in the other, an activist. Looking at it now, it seems B is wrong because it doesn't acknowledge how the stimulus says what legislators should (not) do in the conclusion.