Identify the flaw in the argument: “Ricardo’s budget proposal would allow us to cut costs while maintaining productivity. Meanwhile, Angelica’s proposal would cause severe damage to the environment. Thus, Ricardo’s budget is preferable.”
Answer
This is a comparison flaw. Whenever you make a comparison between two things, it should be a fair one. If we’re looking at Ricardo’s budget in terms of cost-effectiveness, we should do the same for Angelica’s. Similarly, if we are looking at Angelica’s budget’s environmental impact, we should do the same for Ricardo’s budget. Because this argument fails to do either, it is an incomplete comparison.
Want to receive daily LSAT practice delivered right into your inbox? Sign up here for our LSAT Question of the Day emails!
Related Posts
Search the Blog
Free LSAT Practice Account
Sign up for a free Blueprint LSAT account and get access to a free trial of the Self-Paced Course and a free practice LSAT with a detailed score report, mind-blowing analytics, and explanatory videos.
Learn More
Popular Posts
-
-
-
-
General LSAT Advice How to Get a 180 on the LSAT -
Entertainment Revisiting Elle's LSAT Journey from Legally Blonde