Question

Politician: From the time our party took office almost four years ago the number of people unemployed city-wide increased by less than 20 percent. The opposition party controlled city government during the four preceding years, and the number of unemployed city residents rose by over 20 percent. Thus, due to our leadership, fewer people now find themselves among the ranks of the unemployed, whatever the opposition may claim. The reasoning in the politician's argument is most vulnerable to the criticism that (A) the claims made by the opposition are simply dismissed without being specified (B) no evidence has been offered to show that any decline in unemployment over the past four years was uniform throughout all areas of the city (C) the issue of how much unemployment in the city is affected by seasonal fluctuations is ignored (D) the evidence cited in support of the conclusion actually provides more support for the denial of the conclusion (E) the possibility has not been addressed that any increase in the number of people employed is due to programs supported by the opposition party

Short answer

The argument's evidence more directly supports denying its conclusion, making (D) the most relevant criticism.

Step-by-step solution

Understand the Argument

The politician claims that since their party has taken office, the growth in unemployment has been less than 20%, while previously, under the opposition party's control, it was over 20%. Hence, they assert this proves better leadership and fewer unemployed individuals now.

Analyze Argument Vulnerabilities

The argument suggests a causal relationship between the party in power and unemployment rates. However, it lacks consideration of other factors that may influence unemployment, and it dismisses claims by the opposition without addressing them.

Evaluate the Options

Each option presented offers a potential flaw in the argument: (A) ignores the opposition's claims, (B) lacks evidence for uniform unemployment change, (C) ignores seasonal unemployment factors, (D) uses evidence that contradicts the conclusion, (E) neglects the possibility of opposition programs lowering unemployment.

Identify the Most Relevant Criticism

Option (D) suggests that the politician's evidence (smaller percentage increase) does not logically lead to the conclusion that there are fewer unemployed people now. In fact, a growth in unemployment, even if smaller, does not equate to fewer unemployed individuals overall.

Key concepts

Logical Reasoning

Logical reasoning involves an individual's ability to analyze arguments and make judgments based on logic, rather than emotions or preconceived notions. It requires comprehending a situation, identifying relationships between factors, and deducing the most plausible conclusions. Logical reasoning is crucial in standardized tests like the LSAT because it assesses how well one can think critically under pressure.
In the exercise involving the politician's argument about unemployment, logical reasoning helps identify the weaknesses. The argument assumes a causal link between the party’s leadership and a reduced unemployment rate. However, the claim might overlook other contributing factors like global economic trends, local industry health, or different government policies. Logical reasoning helps debunk such assumptions and examines the logic of the argument as presented.
When preparing for the LSAT, practice dissecting arguments similarly. Look for underlying assumptions or overlooked scenarios that could affect the argument's validity. Developing this skill enhances your ability to think clearly and make well-supported conclusions.

Argument Analysis

Argument analysis involves breaking down an argument to examine its components, such as the claims, evidence, assumptions, and conclusions. This skill requires you to critically assess the validity and strength of each component within the argument.
In our exercise, the politician’s argument claims successful leadership due to lower unemployment growth under their governance. Argument analysis reveals potential vulnerabilities, such as:

• The argument dismisses opposition claims without addressing them, indicating a lack of comprehensive evidence.
• The evidence provided (i.e., statistical percentages) might not accurately reflect changes in the actual number of unemployed individuals.
• The argument does not consider external factors, like seasonal employment changes or economic policies implemented by the opposition, influencing unemployment figures.

Through argument analysis, one might conclude that while the leadership might have had some impact, the argument isn't fully substantiated to claim sole responsibility for the observed unemployment figures. To enhance your LSAT preparation, practice decomposing arguments into their basic components and evaluate them critically to spot strengths and weaknesses.

Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is the process of actively conceptualizing, analyzing, and evaluating information to reach a conclusion. It's about not taking arguments at face value and involves questioning assumptions, assessing sources, and gauging the validity of claims.
Applying critical thinking to the politician's statement allows for a deeper analysis of his claims. It makes you consider questions like, _"What other factors could affect unemployment rates?"_ or _"Is the percentage increase truly reflective of improved leadership?"_ Critical thinking might lead one to recognize that a smaller unemployment growth rate does not inherently mean fewer unemployed individuals overall, especially without more context or concrete numbers.
For the LSAT, building critical thinking skills helps in tackling complex logical reasoning problems. To develop these skills, engage in activities such as discussing real-world issues, participating in debates, and practicing exercises that require rigorous analysis. These activities enhance the ability to process information from multiple perspectives, an invaluable skill for aspiring law students and beyond.