Examkin

Question

Difficulty: HardFlaw in the Reasoning

Political Analyst: Historical data from our city's elections over the past five decades demonstrates a remarkably consistent pattern. To win the mayoral election, a candidate must secure the official endorsement of the city's largest and most influential labor union. Mayor Thorne, despite some early campaign missteps, managed to secure this critical endorsement just last week. Therefore, despite the current competitiveness of the race, it is virtually certain that Mayor Thorne will win reelection in the upcoming cycle.

Determine whether the following analytical statement accurately describes the logical flaw committed in the stimulus:

The political analyst's reasoning is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it infers that a condition is necessary for a particular outcome from the fact that this condition is sufficient to produce that outcome.

Answer: Answer

Answer

The statement is false.
The provided statement is false because it perfectly reverses the actual flaw in the argument. The stimulus explicitly states that the endorsement is a requirement, establishing it as a necessary condition for victory. The analyst then concludes that having the endorsement guarantees victory, thereby treating this necessary condition as a sufficient condition. The analytical statement provided describes the exact opposite error—inferring necessity from sufficiency. Because it reverses the direction of the conditional error, it fails to accurately describe the argument's specific vulnerability.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Map the conditional logic provided in the political analyst's premise.
The premise states 'a candidate must secure the official endorsement', meaning the endorsement is formally established as a necessary condition for winning the election.
Identifying the established conditions is required to evaluate the structural validity of the argument's conclusion.
2
Analyze the logical leap made in the conclusion.
The conclusion asserts that because Mayor Thorne secured the endorsement, she is 'virtually certain' to win. This effectively treats the endorsement as a sufficient condition for victory.
Comparing the premise to the conclusion reveals that the analyst treats a necessary condition as if it were a sufficient condition.
3
Evaluate the provided analytical statement against the identified flaw.
The statement claims the argument infers necessity from sufficiency. In reality, the argument infers sufficiency from necessity. Therefore, the description is backward and logically inaccurate.
To accurately describe a flaw on the LSAT, a statement must capture the precise direction of the logical error committed.

Key Concept

Directionality of Formal Logic Flaws (Illegal Reversal vs. Illegal Negation)
Estimated Time:1m 30s
Rate this question

Topics

Flaw in the Reasoning

More questions from this topic