Welcome to the bread and butter of Logical Reasoning: Flaws.
On Flaws, it's your job to figure out what the argument did wrong.
They're often phrased something like this:
- The reasoning in the columnist's argument is flawed in that the argument
- The author's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument
- The argument's reasoning is questionable in that the argument
Recall from earlier, correct answer choices on Flaw questions must meet two criteria. First, the answer choice must involve something that actually happened in the argument. Second, the answer choice must articulate the specific error the argument makes. In other words, the answer choice must be something the argument did, and particularly, the thing it did wrong.
It's easy to get confused reading through the answer choices on Flaw questions. They're often awkwardly worded and will rarely match predictions verbatim. Nonetheless, prediction helps a ton in parsing the wonky wording. Go into them armed with a good prediction and don't pick options that don't make sense.
Let's work through some examples.
Examples
PrepTest 123, Section 2, Question 4
Consumer: The latest Connorly Report suggests that Ocksenfrey prepackaged meals are virtually devoid of nutritional value. But the Connorly Report is commissioned by Danto Foods, Ocksenfrey's largest corporate rival, and early drafts of the report are submitted for approval to Danto Foods' public relations department. Because of the obvious bias of this report, it is clear that Ocksenfrey's prepackaged meals really are nutritious.
This one's pretty simple. Our consumer mistakenly concludes that evidence of Danto's bias equates to Ocksenfrey's vindication. Not so much.
Sure, let's grant the premise that Danto has reason to besmirch Ocksenfrey's good name. Does that mean Ocksenfrey's food is actually nutritious? Maybe, but maybe not.
Consider this parallel argument:
The recent law school rankings show that Draper Law is the worst-ranked school in the nation. But the rankings are commissioned in part by Snooty Law, a school that competes with Draper for students, demonstrating clear bias. Therefore, Draper is not the worst law school in the nation.
See how the flaws are essentially the same? Draper could still completely suck, regardless of Snooty's inherent biases.
So we're looking for an answer choice that says something like, "Just because there's evidence of bias doesn't mean the report is wrong, necessarily."
Right off the bat in answer choice A we get, the argument "treats evidence that there is an apparent bias as evidence that the Connorly Report's claims are false."
Think about what a correct answer requires: (1) argument has to do the thing mentioned, and (2) it's gotta be the problem with the argument's reasoning.
Does the argument conflate evidence of bias with evidence the report's claims are wrong? Sure does. Is that the error this argument makes? Sure is.
Boom—that's our answer.
PrepTest 123, Section 2, Question 17
Let's try a harder one, this time
Hospital executive: At a recent conference on nonprofit management, several computer experts maintained that the most significant threat faced by large institutions such as universities and hospitals is unauthorized access to confidential data. In light of this testimony, we should make the protection of our clients' confidentiality our highest priority.
Interesting. This exec seems to trust other experts pretty quickly. Note the conclusion: "in light of [the computer experts'] testimony, we should make the protection of our clients' confidentiality our highest priority."
Don't get me wrong, in reality, it's probably a great idea to prioritize patient confidentiality. But should it be our highest priority? What about improving patient care standards? Minimizing healthcare costs? Improving working conditions? Are those not all equally important (if not more)?
Again, this is the LSAT, and we have to stay rooted in the words on the page. I'm calling BS on the idea that these computer experts know what should be a hospital's highest priorities. That's my prediction.
It's a little different than I expected, but B gets us there. It reads, "The argument relies on the testimony of experts whose expertise is not shown to be sufficiently broad to support their general claim."
Recall our two requirements: (1) argument did the thing and (2) that thing it did is the error in the argument.
In answer choice B, "the argument" refers to the executive's conclusion that we should prioritize confidentiality, "relies on the testimony of experts..." refers to the computer nerds who are telling us what to do, and "...whose expertise is not show to be sufficiently broad to support their general claim," covers the error—that these guys/gals aren't in a position to tell hospital execs what should be highest priority.
---
I could do Flaws all day long, but we have more ground to cover. Next up, we're tackling Parallel Flaws. See you there.