Examkin

Question

Difficulty: Very hardStraw Man

Economist: Recent studies demonstrate that implementing a nominal congestion pricing fee in the city's central business district during peak commuting hours—provided that strict exemptions are granted for emergency and commercial delivery vehicles—can marginally reduce gridlock while generating dedicated revenue for public transit expansion.

Politician: The economist clearly wants to cripple our local economy. If we construct an insurmountable financial barrier around our city center, everyday citizens will be completely locked out of participating in civic life, effectively turning the downtown area into an exclusive playground for the ultra-wealthy.

Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the politician's reasoning?

  1. A
    It unjustifiably assumes that because a fee is applied during peak commuting hours, it will necessarily affect the entirety of the population attempting to enter the city center.
  2. B
    It takes for granted that implementing a financial disincentive for driving will directly cause a corresponding decline in overall civic engagement.
  3. C
    It illicitly conflates the technical definition of a nominal fee with the colloquial understanding of an economic barrier.
  4. It distorts the scope and severity of a proposed intervention to attack a substantially more extreme position than the one actually advocated.Answer
  5. E
    It fails to engage with the economist's core claim regarding public transit expansion, focusing exclusively on the potential incidental effects on private transportation.

Answer

The correct answer is the option stating that the reasoning distorts the scope and severity of a proposed intervention to attack a substantially more extreme position than the one actually advocated.
The correct answer accurately identifies that the politician commits a Straw Man fallacy. The economist proposes a highly qualified intervention: a 'nominal' fee during 'peak commuting hours' with 'strict exemptions'. The politician mischaracterizes this nuanced proposal as an 'insurmountable financial barrier' that will leave citizens 'completely locked out'. By exaggerating the proposal's severity and scope, the politician creates an extreme, fabricated version of the argument that is much easier to attack.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the economist's original argument.
The economist proposes a highly qualified, limited intervention: a 'nominal' fee during 'peak hours' with 'strict exemptions'.
Establishing the exact parameters of the original claim is necessary to evaluate the accuracy of any subsequent critique.
2
Analyze the politician's rebuttal.
The politician characterizes the plan as an 'insurmountable financial barrier' that will leave everyday citizens 'completely locked out' of civic life.
Understanding how the respondent characterizes the original claim reveals the logical structure of their counterargument.
3
Compare the two positions to identify the logical vulnerability.
The politician grossly exaggerates the severity (nominal vs. insurmountable) and scope (peak hours/exemptions vs. completely locked out) of the economist's proposal.
This mismatch demonstrates that the politician is attacking a fabricated, extreme version of the argument rather than the actual proposal.
4
Evaluate the options to find the one describing this distortion.
The option describing a distortion of scope and severity perfectly matches this Straw Man fallacy, while other options point to secondary internal flaws or incorrect fallacies.
In LSAT flaw questions involving a rebuttal, the primary flaw is almost always how the second speaker structurally misuses or misrepresents the first speaker's premises.

Key Concept

Straw Man Fallacy (Mischaracterization of an Opponent's Argument)
Rate this question

Topics

Straw Man

More questions from this topic