Q25 - Of the citizens who disapprove of the

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Match the Flaw

Stimulus Breakdown:
A chunk of citizens don't like the PM. Most of them don't like her because she supports increasing taxes. But Theresa also wants to raise taxes, so she probably approves of the PM.

Answer Anticipation:
When an argument uses quantifiers such as "some" and "most", there's a good chance that it messes up how these groups overlap.

This argument concludes that there's over a 50+% chance T approves of the PM (probably = most). This conclusion is based on the fact that T isn't in the group that disapproves of the PM because of the income tax issue - most who disapprove are in this group.

Does this mean the chances she disapproves of the PM are over 50%? Nope. I generally like to come up with extreme examples that still align with the premises to help me on these questions. For example, here, I'd pretend that 99% of citizens disapprove of the PM. While 51% disapprove because of income taxes, 48% disapprove for other reasons, and 1% approve. T isn't in that 51%, but there's a much better chance she's in the 48% that disapprove for other reasons than the 1% that approve.

There are other situations where everything works out (say the PM has a 30% disapproval rating). But finding a situation that aligns with the premises but breaks the conclusion highlights the flaw. Since the flaw is in the overlap of these groups, I'm going to look for an answer that also has a couple "most" statements, including the conclusion.

Correct answer:
(A)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Bingo. Of a group, most have a characteristic. Andy doesn't have that characteristic, so he's likely not in the group. That's the exact same structure, and the exact same flaw.

(B) Premise mismatch/Wrong flaw (Illegal negation). Bonita is stated in a premise as being not "of the people" discussed, whereas the stimulus concludes that about Theresa.

(C) Premise mismatch/Wrong flaw (Illegal negation). Chung is stated in a premise as being not "of the people" discussed, whereas the stimulus concludes that about Theresa. This answer matches (B).

(D) Valid-ish. This answer choice places Donna in the relevant group and concludes something is likely about her that's likely of the group.

(E) Valid-ish. This answer choice places Eduardo in the relevant group and concludes something is likely about him that's likely of the group. This answer matches (D).

Takeaway/Pattern:
If two answers match each other, they must both be wrong (since if either matched, both would match, and there will never be two correct answers on the LSAT).

#officialexplanation