June 2017 LSAT Section 3 Question 13

Legislator: My colleague says we should reject this act because it would deter investment. But because in the past sh...

KiaBrodersen on January 8 at 12:11AM

Answer B

So my thought process for this question eliminated Answer B almost immediately because B says: "fails to address the grounds on which the colleague claims the act should be rejected" I eliminated B because I thought that the Legislator DID address the grounds on which the colleague opposed the act through saying, "Since she has not revealed her real reason". Though the Legislator did not address the the colleague's grounds for opposition specifically - wouldn't even saying "she didn't reveal her reason" still technically address it? Because if she didn't reveal her reason for rejecting the act, how could he address is specifically? I hope that makes sense. Perhaps I am missing something. Thank you.

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

Emil-Kunkin on January 9 at 02:56PM

The colleagues grounds for which the act should be rejected was that it would deter investment. The author wrongly dismissed this as impossible because the colleague has supported bills that do this in the past, but this doesn't mean this isn't her real reason. The author completely fails to engage with the stated reason for the support and instead posits there must be some other reason but fails to consider that maybe the stated reason is the real reason. This is the heart of the flaw here.