#24 - Mr. Nance: Ms. Chan said that she retired from Quad

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

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

Mr. Nance states that Ms. Chan said that she has retired from Quad Cities Inc., but that he has overheard one of her colleagues say that Ms. Chan will be on business trips for much of the next year, so he concludes that Ms. Chan or her colleague is lying.

Mr. Nance is ignoring the incredibly obvious fact that Ms. Chan could simply work for another company next year, or attend to her own business affairs.

Since you are asked to identify the flaw in Mr. Nance's reasoning, you should focus on the fact that he has ignored the many interpretations of the situation in which no one is lying.

Answer choice (A): Mr. Nance's argument is not based on hearsay; rather, his argument is based on an overly extreme acceptance or rejection of hearsay. If Mr. Nance had concluded that Ms. Chan is definitely lying, he would be basing his argument on hearsay; however, Mr. Nance is just as open to rejecting the hearsay as to accepting it.

Answer choice (B): Mr. Nance does not criticize Ms. Chan, as he does not identify the exact source of the "lying." Furthermore, asserting that a claim is not true, or that someone has lied, is in fact a criticism of the "claim." A criticism of the person would involve designating someone as a "liar."

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. The equivocal language referenced in this answer choice concerns use of the term "retired." Mr. Nance apparently believes that his definition of retirement should dictate the retirement activities of others. While Nance may believe that retirement means living on a golf course, it may be that Mr. Chan is simply retiring from his current position while continuing to work.

Answer choice (D): Since this response would actually mean that Ms. Chan has lied to her colleague, this response could not describe a flaw. Even if Mr. Nance did not consider this possibility, the possibility that Ms. Chan lied only supports the idea that someone is not telling the truth, so this choice is wrong.

Answer choice (E): Actually, assuming that someone has superior character on the basis of a long and loyal service is itself a logical flaw, and it is not a flaw to refuse to infer things that do not logically follow. This choice is wrong. Furthermore, Mr. Nance never claims that Ms. Chan is the one who is lying.

[GLMDYP]

Hi Powerscore!
I encountered several other questions containing the word "equivocal". What does the word "equivocal" means in lsat? How doe this word function? How to interpret (C) in this question?
Thanks!

[Ron Gore]

GLMDYP,

The word "equivocal," which comes from a word meaning "equal voice," means ambiguous, or subject to more than one interpretation.

In question 24, the word "retire(d)"/"retire(ment)" is used in an equivocal, or ambiguous, way because it is used in two ways that convey different meanings: 1) she has completed her working career at Quad Cities Corporation; and 2) has completed her professional life in general.

The speaker, Mr. Nance, concluded that one of the two people who provided him information must be lying, but only because he assumed that Ms. Chan having concluded her professional career at Quad Cities Corporation meant she must have removed herself from professional life altogether. That conclusion relies on Mr. Nance using the word "retire" in both the ways provided above, which is using the word equivocally.

Ron

[swong1267]

This seems like a tricky question, since I think colloquially "to retire" means to be finished with your professional career.. Any tips on looking past these colloquial/familiar definitions?

[Claire Horan]

Hi Swong,

It's actually important not to "look past" colloquial or familiar definitions. Instead, consider all of the possible meanings that a word can have in a particular context. In this question, "retirement" has a familiar meaning, as you have pointed out, but the other meaning of retirement has legal meaning. For example, if someone qualifies for retirement benefits at their company, she may choose to retire, but that doesn't mean she will never work again.

In class, I find myself saying over and over again that we have to check whether we are making any unwarranted assumptions. Alternative/nuanced definitions of words fits right in with that generalized tip!

[simonsap]

Her idea of retired may be different from Nance's idea of retired.

Sleight of hand - tricky question in a stupid and unfair way. Process of elimination and being sure in your choices is the best approach.

[relona]

I had a prephrase that was similar to answer choice (C) but I didn't know what equivocal meant so I didn't choose that answer. Any recommendations if this happens again?

Thanks!

[Robert Carroll]

relona,

Any time the test uses language with which you're unfamiliar and doesn't define it, it's important to realize that this is vocabulary they expect you to know. So study those words.

The flaw of uncertain use of a term or concept is also called the fallacy of equivocation, and a few answer choices on the test in the past have used this word "equivocal", so it's important to know that definition.

Robert Carroll

[queenbee]

Hi
I dont understand why A is not the correct answer. Mr, Nance overheard someone say something. That doesn't mean it's true. Isn't that hearsay?
Thank you

[Paul Popa]

Hi Queen,

That's a great question, and it's no surprise that LSAC made this answer choice (A). The main problem with Mr. Nance's argument is that he fails to recognize that Ms. Chan might have continued work at a different company. She is retiring from one position at Quad Cities Corporation, but could be starting another job elsewhere. Ultimately, Nance doesn't realize that what Ms. Chan and her colleague said could both be true at the same time. It's not necessarily true that one is lying.

(A) says that the argument is flawed because it is based in part on hearsay, but I would argue that here, Mr. Nance is using hearsay appropriately. He doesn't take either Ms. Chan or her colleague's words as fact (e.g. Therefore, Ms. Chan is lying). He's accepting them as competing claims, and deducing (incorrectly) that they can't both be true at the same time. Now, if Mr. Nance had gone so far as to take what one person said as fact and make that his conclusion, (A) would be a better answer. But, as it stands, (C) is the best answer here. Hope this helps!