#20 - Mr. Klemke argues that the complaints recently lodged

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (B).

Ah, politics. The source of all joy in American life!

In this argument, the author is responding to a claim by Mr. Klemke. Klemke argues that the complaints recently lodged against his roofing company are baseless, on the grounds that his political views are widely known and each of the complainants disagrees with his views, therefore making them biased. But the author argues that perhaps Klemke actually did treat them badly because he disagreed with their views, so Klemke is incorrect that the complaints are unfounded.

This argument appears to have two flaws. Firstly, and perhaps surprisingly, is that the author doesn't seem to refute Klemke's reasoning at all. Merely, they provide an additional consideration and leave his premise without a direct response. Given how petulant many are when it comes to politics, it appears more than possible that the complainants were motivated by their feelings about Klemke's politics than his actual roofing skills. Secondly, they treat poor evidence as proof that a conclusion is false, but this a common fallacy tested on the LSAT. A conclusion can still be true, even if the evidence given for it is inadequate.

Answer choice (A): In other words, this answer choice claims that the argument treats the leaving of negative reviews as a cause of the complainants' bias, which the argument never does. Skip.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. Yes! The is one of the flaws we caught in our prephrase and the correct answer.

Answer choice (C): Be careful with shell game answers like this. It uses a lot of words we saw in the stimulus, but make sure to understand what the answer is actually saying. The author doesn't reject Klemke's argument because they feel Klemke was biased; they reject it because they found his reasoning to be weak.

Answer choice (D): The author never relied on a sample of opinions. Skip.

Answer choice (E): No, the author is definitely aware that Klemke and the complainants disagree on their political views.

[bella243]

Can someone please explain why exactly is E wrong? If it is true that people whose views diverge are unaware of their disagreement, doesn't it make it more likely that their complaints are biased?

[clynn726]

Can someone please explain why exactly is E wrong? If it is true that people whose views diverge are unaware of their disagreement, doesn't it make it more likely that their complaints are biased?

I eliminated (E) because it primarily focused on Mr. Klemke's argument. The main argument in question is that having a different view from Mr. Klemke would not prevent one from being treated poorly by his company. Therefore, his claim that these complaints are unfounded is incorrect. So, even if one was unaware of their diverging views - the arguer would still say that having that different view (whether they are aware or not) would still not prevent them from being treated poorly.

On the other hand, answer choice (B) is correct because the argue cannot logically conclude that Mr. Klemke's argument is incorrect just based on the fact that "having a different view would not prevent them from being treated poorly." That is not sufficient evidence.

I hope this helps!

[Adam Tyson]

Good explanation, clynn726! I'll add to it my thoughts.

One thing you always want to do with any logical reasoning question, bella243, is prephrase. That is, determine for yourself what the correct answer should say, or do, or contain, BEFORE you look at any answer choices. In this case, you might have spotted that this is one of the most common types of flaws we have seen on the LSAT in the last few years, what we call a "some evidence" flaw. The author has SOME evidence that Klemke is wrong, and that does weaken Klemke's argument, but the author then goes overboard and acts as if weakening that argument is enough to completely disprove it. Having some evidence against a position may not be enough to disprove it, just as having some evidence in favor of a position may not be enough to prove the conclusion. That's the best prephrase here: we need an answer that describes this kind of "some evidence" flaw, where the author has treated weakening an argument as if that destroys it. Answer B does exactly that, and that makes it the perfect answer!

So what's wrong with answer E? First, it doesn't match that prephrase! No answer could be better than a perfect match, so E is not the "best" answer, no matter how much you might like it.

But there's more to it than that. A good Flaw in the Reasoning answer must be both accurate and relevant. That is, it must describe something that actually happened in the stimulus (accurate), and that thing, if it happened, must pose a problem for the author (relevant).

Answer E could be said to be accurate, because the argument never did consider that possibility. But it fails the second test, because that possibility isn't relevant to the argument! Perhaps some people are unaware that they disagree with each other, but Klemke is very aware of the disagreements here, and it seems likely that most of the people complaining about him are also aware since Klemke's views are widely known. And even if some of the people complaining are not aware that they disagree with Klemke, that wouldn't harm our author's argument, as clynn726 pointed out. If some of the complaining customers are unaware of Klemke's political views, their complaints would not be biased by those views. That would hurt Klemke's argument, and thus would actually HELP our author! It's therefore not a flaw at all, and so cannot be the correct answer to a Flaw in the Reasoning question.

[MillerP]

Basically...

-Klemke is saying these people left bad yelp reviews because he likes a certain past president.
-The author is saying just because these people have different political views doesn't mean Klemke could not have been a jerk - therefore Klemke is certainly wrong.

-The author failed to address that MAYBE Klemke wasn't a jerk. MAYBE Klemke is a nice guy and these other people were the jerks...

Author: "Klemke can still be a jerk even if they have different political views..."
Me: " Riiiiiiight, but couldn't these people still be a jerk to Klemke?"
Author: "Nope! Klemke is wrong and they are right to complain!"
Me: "Okayyy, but why can't these people be jerks to Klemke?"
Author: "Because politics doesn't shield them from Klemke being a jerk"
Me: "Okay, but that's not what I asked?"
Author: "...I think pink flavored crayons taste the best"
Me: "I'll bet you do buddy!"

[MillerP]

Also, I initially chose A and it took me two hours to solve this because I ate too many crayons for breakfast. Friendly reminder - don't be too hard on yourself.

[Adam Tyson]

I love the analysis, MillerP! You got it! Klemke might be not be a jerk even if biased people have the potential to lodge valid complaints.

Crayons for breakfast, you say? Are you by any chance a Marine? If so, thanks for your service, but we need to work on better nutrition to feed your brain, my friend! Carrots over crayons!

[KwakuS]

Hello,

Thank you for the previous responses. I just want to make sure I understand how this is a "some evidence" flaw. B says that the argument "concludes that a claim" - Mr. Klemke's claim I would assume - "is false on the grounds that an inadequate argument has been given for it." That inadequate argument being Mr. Klemke's claim that each of the complainants is biased against him.

The author then says that Klemke could still have treated people that had a different political outlook than him badly. Does that sentence function as the author claiming that Klemke's argument is inadequate?

Also, more generally speaking, is it really a flaw in the argument to call out Klemke's reasoning? I get that this author gave a reason that didn't make much sense, so I can see why his reasoning was flawed. But Klemke's reasoning was not that good either. Could one potentially turn this into a weaken question, where one has to pick an answer choice that weakens or exposes the flaws in Klemke's reasoning?

[lemonade42]

Can you check to see if I'm understanding this correctly? I'm a bit confused on what the "inadequate" part of the argument is. So the author is basically saying "these commenters with a different political view are actually being treated badly". But to us, that sentence only suggests they were treated badly and doesn't actually destroy the fact that the commenters could still be biased in their complaints. Like, ok they are treated badly, but they can also be biased. So it's "inadequate" to prove that K is wrong. And so it "weakens" K's arg like Adam said because it seems like the author is suggesting that because the people are actually being treated badly, the complaints are probably not biased. However, isn't K's argument about how the "biased" complaints are based only the different political views? So that makes me think that talking about being treated badly doesn't actually weaken K's argument, because K wasn't even talking about being treated badly, he was talking about the political views.

[Chandler H]

Can you check to see if I'm understanding this correctly? I'm a bit confused on what the "inadequate" part of the argument is. So the author is basically saying "these commenters with a different political view are actually being treated badly". But to us, that sentence only suggests they were treated badly and doesn't actually destroy the fact that the commenters could still be biased in their complaints. Like, ok they are treated badly, but they can also be biased. So it's "inadequate" to prove that K is wrong. And so it "weakens" K's arg like Adam said because it seems like the author is suggesting that because the people are actually being treated badly, the complaints are probably not biased. However, isn't K's argument about how the "biased" complaints are based only the different political views? So that makes me think that talking about being treated badly doesn't actually weaken K's argument, because K wasn't even talking about being treated badly, he was talking about the political views.

Hi lemonade42,

I'm not sure I quite agree with your reasoning. We don't actually know whether the complainants were treated badly or not—it's up in the air. Mr. Klemke argues that the complaints against his business are unfounded because the complainants may have been biased. However, the author argues, having biases wouldn't prevent these people from also having legitimate complaints. (The author isn't saying that the people are DEFINITELY legitimate in their complaints—they are just saying that their biases wouldn't prevent them from having legitimate complaints.) So far, this all makes sense. The issue arises when the author asserts that, therefore, the complaints are NOT unfounded.

However, we don't know whether the complaints are unfounded or not, right? All we know is that Klemke's reasoning was flawed, but it's still possible that the complaints are unfounded.

Imagine if I said, "You argue that it rained last night because my lawn is wet. However, I watered my lawn yesterday. Therefore, it didn't rain last night." While it's certainly true that "my lawn is wet" is not adequate evidence to PROVE that it rained last night, the fact that it's not adequate doesn't mean that the whole thing gets to be thrown out. It could still have rained last night—you just haven' t presented adequate evidence to prove it! Therefore, this conclusion ("it didn't rain last night/the complaints are unfounded") is incorrect.

Does this make sense?