LSAT Explanation PT 42, S2, Q17: Politician: Some of my opponents have

LSAT Question Stem

A reasoning flaw in the politician's argument is that the argument 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Flaw question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is A. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

Let's first analyze the structure of the argument in the passage. The politician presents the opponents' argument, which is in favor of reducing social spending on theoretical grounds. The politician then suggests that the opponents should focus on the main cause of deficit spending, which is the bloated government with bureaucrats and self-aggrandizing politicians. The conclusion of the politician's argument is that it is unwarranted to reduce social expenditure.

In this argument, the opponents' argument is a premise, while the suggestion to focus on the main cause of deficit spending is another premise. The conclusion is that it is unwarranted to reduce social expenditure.

Now, let's come up with an "Evaluate" question for the argument: "Does addressing the main cause of deficit spending necessarily mean that reducing social expenditure is unwarranted?"

The question type of this problem is Flaw, and we need to identify the reasoning flaw in the politician's argument.

a) The correct answer is A, as the politician's argument does not address the arguments advanced by the opponents. The politician merely suggests that the opponents should focus on the main cause of deficit spending instead of their original argument, but this doesn't engage with or refute the opponents' argument. The politician's conclusion that it is unwarranted to reduce social expenditure is not supported by directly addressing the opponents' argument.

b) Answer choice B is incorrect because the politician's argument is not making an attack on the character of the opponents. The politician mentions the bloated government with bureaucrats and self-aggrandizing politicians, but this is not a direct attack on the opponents' character.

c) Answer choice C is incorrect because the politician's argument does not take for granted that deficit spending has just one cause. The politician suggests that the main cause of deficit spending is the bloated government, but this does not imply that there are no other causes.

d) Answer choice D is incorrect because the politician's argument does not portray the opponents' views as more extreme than they really are. The politician's argument is suggesting a different focus for the opponents, but it does not exaggerate their views.

e) Answer choice E is incorrect because the politician's argument does not need to make clear what counts as excessive spending. The flaw in the argument is not related to the definition of excessive spending, but rather the failure to address the opponents' argument.

In conclusion, the reasoning flaw in the politician's argument is that it does not address the arguments advanced by the opponents (answer choice A). The politician's conclusion that it is unwarranted to reduce social expenditure is not supported by directly engaging with or refuting the opponents' argument.