Q14 - City council member: Despite the

[peg_city]

Can someone explain to me the reasoning behind B?

There is a conflict in interest between the Major's personal financial interest and the proposed development fee. If the development fee is introduced then this could negatively affect future business of the family.

What am I missing?

[bbirdwell]

Let's look at the core of the argument first.

Conclusion:
Mayor sacrificing city's interest to personal interest.

Premises:
1. City needs revenue
2. mayor blocked fees
3. figures show that fees will lead to revenue loss for the city
4. mayor's family involved in real estate, has financial interest

Now, before moving on to the choices, let's evaluate the logic here and see if we can identify any gaps.

It's clear from #4 that the mayor has a personal interest in the matter and that the fees would be bad for that personal interest. However, looking at #3 above, the fees are also bad for the city. Don't let the fact that the mayor presented the figures fool you -- figures are figures, and as no competing evidence or figures were offered, we've no logical reason to dismiss them.

Therefore, the conclusion is not a good one. Based on the evidence given, the fees are bad for the city, and thus, while the mayor may very well be acting from personal motives, he is not at all sacrificing the city's interest by doing so.

Do you see that?

Now look at the choices.

(A) Eliminate! The mayor's personal interest is definitely not "irrelevant."

(B) Bingo! The double negative is awkward. Easier to read it something like "mayor's personal advantage not opposed to city advantage." This is exactly what we saw in the analysis above. Fees not good for mayor's personal interest, nor are they good for the city.

(C) Eliminate. Council member interest is out of scope here, as the conclusion is explicitly about the mayor.

(D) Eliminate. This is far out of scope - the conclusion has nothing to do with needs and rights.

(E) Eliminate. This may very well be true, and so what? It's not a logical flaw.

Does that help?

[nancyhappygirl]

Sorry, i'm still confused.
But, doesn't it sound like personal attack? Instead of attacking the claim itself, you attack the person who made the claim?

[vik]

Ans A. The mayor's personal interest is relevant to the assessment of the mayor's actions, because the assessment is about the mayor's personal interest.

If the conclusion was as follows, then personal interest would be irrelevant.
"The mayor has personal interests, therefore his proposal is bad."

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Sorry, i'm still confused.
But, doesn't it sound like personal attack? Instead of attacking the claim itself, you attack the person who made the claim?

You're absolutely right! This is a personal attack. But we need to makes sure that we don't take things too far. The mayor's personal interest is not irrelevant to the conclusion about whether the mayor is sacrificing the city's interests to personal interests. But the personal attack will not prove that the city council member's conclusion. So while we can't say that the mayor's personal interests are irrelevant, we can say that they don't prove the conclusion (ie; are consistent with the conclusion being false).

Hope that helps!

Ans A. The mayor's personal interest is relevant to the assessment of the mayor's actions, because the assessment is about the mayor's personal interest.

Nice point, exactly right!

[Rollontheground]

Don't let the fact that the mayor presented the figures fool you -- figures are figures, and as no competing evidence or figures were offered, we've no logical reason to dismiss them.

BBird, Matt, or anyone else, is this a rule that always applies to LSAT questions? I came across answer choice B and saw that it doesn't contain the word "necessarily" "” as in: "is not necessarily inconsistent" "” which caused me to cross it out and choose A.

So, is this a general rule?

[WaltGrace1983]

Don't let the fact that the mayor presented the figures fool you -- figures are figures, and as no competing evidence or figures were offered, we've no logical reason to dismiss them.

BBird, Matt, or anyone else, is this a rule that always applies to LSAT questions? I came across answer choice B and saw that it doesn't contain the word "necessarily" "” as in: "is not necessarily inconsistent" "” which caused me to cross it out and choose A.

So, is this a general rule?

Unless someone else corrects me on this, figures are figures only when they are used as background information or a premise. In this argument, figures are a premise. We have no reason to question the validity of them. However, when someone has an conclusion that is based on a misrepresentation of those figures, that is when it gets erroneous. Maybe it would be best explained with an example...

The mayor shows that fees of the size proposed would reduce the number of building starts and thus result in a revenue loss to the city
+
Revenue loss is bad for the city's economy
-->
Fees are bad for the national economy.

We don't have to question these figures. They are a part of a premise. They are used in a way that is logically consistent. So pretty much any answer choice having to do with those figures is wrong. The right answer choice would clearly have something to do with the gap between "revenue loss for the city" and "national economy." Now lets look at another argument...

"Study shows that high blood pressure causes high cholesterol. High cholesterol, a common consequence of eating too much bacon with one's eggs in the morning, is often a problem that people misunderstand. However, we know that high cholesterol causes heart attack. Heart attacks can be a consequence of many reasons but heart attacks cause stroke. High blood pressure, as we can see, inevitably causes stroke."

Let's look at what is going on in this argument...

"Study shows that high blood pressure causes high cholesterol. High cholesterol, a common consequence of eating too much bacon with one's eggs in the morning, is often a problem that people misunderstand. However, we know that high cholesterol causes heart attack. Heart attacks can be a consequence of many reasons but heart attacks cause stroke. High blood pressure, as we can see, inevitably causes stroke."

Which one of the following is a sufficient assumption?
(A) Heart attacks cause stroke
(B) The study is accurate

Look at the difference between this argument and the last one. In this argument, the only thing we can question is the study. Everything else is fact. We have no reason to believe otherwise. There is a lot of objective stuff in there as, we cannot question the premises themselves but how the premises are interpreted. In this case, we are assuming that the study is true. If it is not true then the argument does not follow.

This is how I understand all of these questions about studies, figures, etc. If I am wrong please let me know

[JaneK309]

My book says it's supposed to be answer c