#14 - Newspaper subscriber: Arnot’s editorial argues that

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

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

This stimulus begins with an anti-conclusion, or with the idea against which the entire argument is structured. The newspaper subscriber argues against Arnot’s conclusion that fundamental changes in the government would cause a significant reduction in some of our most serious social problems. The subscriber states that since Arnot assumed in his argument that government could be trusted to act the best interest of its citizens, his conclusion must be incorrect. While the subscriber has a valid objection to Arnot’s argument, his conclusion is too strong. Just because an argument relies on a mistaken assumption does not mean that the conclusion of the argument is a false statement. The conclusion could still be true, but for different reasons.

Some students are confused by the concept of certain conclusions or statements being “too strong” and attempt to eliminate answer choices based solely on the use of strong words, such as “must” or “only.” This is an incorrect way to approach the reasoning. The problem in this case is that the conclusion is stronger that what is supported by the newspaper subscriber’s argument. The subscriber’s argument would support a conclusion that Arnot’s argument was not well supported, but not that his conclusion is incorrect.

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. The newspaper subscriber provides no support for his or her own conclusion that fundamental changes in the government would not cause a significant reduction in certain social problems. The only support provided is that an assumption made in the opposite argument is false. As discussed above, while it is good reasoning to point out faulty assumptions to weaken an argument, it does not automatically make the conclusion of an argument false.

Answer choice (B): The error in conditional reasoning described in this answer choice is not reflective of the argument. Neither Argot nor the newspaper subscriber makes an argument that depends on conditional reasoning.

Answer choice (C): This answer choice looks tempting, because it involves the correct issues, but does not accurately combine them into the correct answer choice. The stimulus is flawed because it incorrectly concludes that because an assumption is incorrect, the conclusion of an argument must also be false. This answer choice describes a situation where the author of an argument would assume that because the conclusion of an argument is false, the assumptions for that argument are also false. This slight switch makes the answer choice incorrect.

Answer choice (D): The newspaper subscriber attacks an assumption of Arnot’s argument. The stimulus gives no indication that the newspaper subscriber misrepresents Arnot’s argument.

Answer choice (E): The stimulus consistently uses the term “government” to mean a societal
institution that makes and implements laws and policies. Since the term is used consistently in the argument by both Arnot and the subscriber this does not correctly describe the problem with the reasoning.

[melissa27]

Can you please explain how to attack question 14. I ultimately picked answer choice C out of trying to decide between answer choices A, C, and D.

[Jon Denning]

This is a tricky Flaw question, where I think your "attack" depends on spotting the faulty logic in the subscriber's argument (and really any argument that's structured this way): just because the premise(s) of someone else's argument might be questionable, doesn't mean his/her conclusion is false. To conclude that Arnot's conclusion is false just because it relies on a dubious assumption is a mistake on the part of the subscriber. A conclusion can be correct even if the support given for it is ridiculous.

Consider if I told you that eating lots of Big Macs is bad for you because of the lettuce on the burger---my conclusion is correct (bad for you), even though it's based on an incorrect idea (lettuce is what makes them bad for you). To say that lettuce isn't bad for you would potentially weaken my argument, but it wouldn't invalidate my conclusion or make it false. Claiming that it made my conclusion false is a flaw in the rebuttal.

So answer choice A says exactly that: the argument calls a claim "false" just because the support given for it is questionable.

The problem with C is that it doesn't actually describe the argument. In fact, it describes almost the reverse of the argument: the argument is that the conclusion is false SINCE it's premises are dubious; C describes an argument where a premise is questioned SINCE it's used to support a false conclusion. We don't know the conclusion of Arnot is false, so C taking for granted that it is is not a description of the stimulus.

Does that help?

[melissa27]

It does and I definitely see why A is correct now, but can you elaborate a bit more about how answer choice C describes an argument where a "premise is questioned." I understand how we don't know whether Arnot's argument is false, but I thought this answer choice covered that since it stated, "if...conclusion...false."
The reason why I chose this answer was because I thought I was logically able to relate it to the stimulus. "Fails to consider that if conclusion false, some of the assumptions ( government can be trusted) can still be true."

[Dave Killoran]

Hey Melissa,

Consider Jon's comments in the context that he's discussing an answer that describes a flaw. If the answer choice is describing a flaw--in this case that the author failed to consider some of the assumptions could be true--then the idea would be that the author in the argument must have said because the conclusion is false, then the premises/assumptions are also false. In this sense, (C) is the exact reverse of what we want.

Thanks!

[avengingangel]

Wow, this question is just wild to me. But, thanks for all the explanations.

I've otherwise readily and correctly identified flaws in Flaw questions, including those that are of the "Errors in the Use of Evidence" family... After reading the explanations here. I would categorize this as a "Some evidence against a position is taken to prove that position is false" flaw, yes? (Per Administrator's explanation: "Just because an argument relies on a mistaken assumption does not mean that the conclusion of the argument is a false statement. The conclusion could still be true, but for different reasons.") However, I really struggled with this one (I chose B, twice) because it seems like this is a unique scenario...: If Arnot's assumption that the government would work on behalf of the people is untrue, I really don't see how the conclusion can be true?? It seems like that particular assumption is a necessary condition for the conclusion to be true. Thus, I chose B (twice). It seems quite different from Jon's Big Mac example (although, I found it incredibly helpful as an explanation for the flaw in general). Could someone please address this / unpack this a little more for me ?? Just when I thought I totally had flaw questions down...

Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

I think the issue here, Angel, is that the author did not say that Arnot's assumption was untrue (false), but rather that it was "dubious". That is, it MIGHT not be true - it was questionable, or weak.

We've seen flaw questions like this one before, and we will see them again. The basic idea is that the author advanced an idea that may have weakened an opponent's argument, but then the author went too far and believed/assumed that he had DESTROYED or disproven the opponent's argument.

Jon's analogy did rely on disproving a premise, rather than just questioning it, but it's still the same idea - weakening an argument is not the same as disproving it.

I agree with your categorization of the flaw being a "some evidence against" type. Good job there!

[avengingangel]

Ah, ah, yes - that's totally it. I had a different understanding of the word "dubious." I thought the Newspaper Subscriber was saying that Arnot (great name btw) was relying on a completely false assumption...

Adding "dubious" to my list of 'LSAT words' I've defined & am working to get familiar with! (Among the list: eschew, obviate, vacuous, esoteric, conflate, milieu...)

Thanks !!

[jrafert]

Ok.

[Steven Palmer]

Hi jrafert,

I see why this is frustrating, but what you said is exactly key: we don't know Arnot's argument. If we don't know his argument, we cannot know if the subscriber is distorting it or not distorting it or anything. Thus, we can't know that the subscriber is changing the argument. Instead, all we can know is how the subscriber decides that the conclusion in Arnot's editorial is false, which is simply that an argument for it is wrong.

Hope this helps!
Steven