LSATMax and COVID-19:
Amid these difficult times, we're lowering the price on all courses.
Free LSAT Practice
LSAT Practice Test
LSAT Practice Test Videos
eBook: The Road to 180
Law School Top 100
LSAT Test Proctor
LSAT Logic Games
Apple App Store
Digital LSAT Simulator
Campus Rep Internship
Fee Waiver Scholarship
LSAT Test Dates
LSAT Message Board
June 2017 LSAT
If a piece of legislation is the result of negotiation and compromise between competing interest groups, it will not ...
on September 17 at 05:53PM
Why is B correct? Why is C incorrect?
on September 17 at 11:49PM
The argument tells us that if legislation is a result of compromise, it will not satisfy anyone.
compromise legislation -> no one is happy
The groups are unhappy about a recent piece of legislation.
no one is happy
The argument then concludes that recent legislation represents a compromise
To put it all together:
P: compromise legislation -> no one is happy
P: no one is happy
C: compromise legislation
The argument commits a logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent, concluding that because the consequent (no one is happy) is true, the antecedent must be true (compromise legislation). The only proper inference he is that if all the groups are happy, we can conclude that the piece of legislation is not a result of compromise. In so doing, the argument confuses necessary and sufficient conditions, concluding that "compromise legislation" is a necessary condition and "no one is happy" is sufficient in order to draw its conclusion.
(B) accurately describes this logical flaw.
(C) is incorrect because there is no equivocation here. The key terms- "compromises", "unhappy with it" are used consistently throughout the argument.
Let me know if you have any further questions.
Posting to the forum is only allowed for members with active accounts.