#9 - That long-term cigarette smoking can lead to health

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Flaw in the Reasoning-CE. The correct answer choice is (E)

Answer choice (A): The argument does not need to establish that the connection between tooth decay and candy eating is as scientifically well documented as that between smoking and health problems. Whether one connection is scientifically documented as the other does not affect the analogy between them.

Answer choice (B): The argument does not assume that everyone who gets cavities does so only as a result of eating too much candy. It merely states that excessive consumption of candy leads to problems such as tooth decay.

Answer choice (C): The terms “excessive” and “long-term” are quite clear in meaning, and the argument does not rely on any ambiguous or questionable understanding of these terms.

Answer choice (D): The argument does not need to identify the “many people” to make its point. It merely states that contrary to what many people believe, it is not necessary to deny the problems of smoking to reject the view that tobacco companies should be held responsible.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. The argument is problematic because the tooth decay example is not analogous to caner and lung disease. The health problems of smoking is so much more serious, chronic and dangerous that tobacco companies should be held responsible for their products. Compared to these problems, tooth decay is relatively minor and that is why nobody would sue candy manufacturers.

[lathlee]

Is this inappropriate comparison type flaw?

[nicholaspavic]

Hi lathlee,

Yes, this would be an inappropriate comparison flaw. The effects are dramatically different with one leading to death while the other one merely leads to bad teeth. The effects really aren't the only difference as you can obviously also just brush your teeth after consuming candy while you cannot brush your lungs. Thanks for the good work and keep it up!

[lmasta0340]

I understand that answer choice A is incorrect because it says it is not as well documented, but would this describe a flaw if it only stated that the link between tooth decay and candy eating is not scientifically documented at all in the stimulus?

Thank you in advance!

[KelseyWoods]

Hi lmasta0340!

Even if answer choice (A) stated that the argument "fails to establish that the connection between tooth decay and candy eating is scientifically documented," it still would not describe where this argument is most vulnerable to criticism. The potential of candy leading to tooth decay is essentially common knowledge, not a disputed fact, so we don't really need the author to provide scientific studies to back up this claim. The much bigger problem with the analogy is that tooth decay is not really comparable to cancer and lung disease. Remember that we're always looking for the biggest flaw in the argument.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[NeenStudies]

Hello!

I am currently doing the Flaw in Reasoning Drill Set,

I can't seem to get the right choice between the contenders often.
My understanding of FIR is that they are abstract, meaning: we judge the correct A/C to describe the mistake of the entire argument as a whole?
However, I see a pattern, whenever the question mentions "reasoning" the A/C seems to be more specific towards a single premise. To further explain, the correct A/C pinpoints the mistake made in the premises. Whereas, when the question goes something like this "which one is a flaw in XYZ's defence", the A/C seems more broader in scope to the entire stimulus. Maybe, I'm referring to wrong questions types. But to put it simply, some of the questions require more specific answers and some I find to be more broader in scope, am I getting somewhere here? The ones that are more specific seems more similar to weakening questions?

PS: apology for the annoying nature of my PhD level thesis hunting against the LSAT. I'm trying to understand everything from a different perspective, so i don't just give an exam by memorizing techniques and not understanding them.

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi Neenstudies,

I think you may be reading too much into things. Here, for example, our question stem uses the term "reasoning," but the flaw is an overarching one. The argument is one by analogy, and the flaw is that they didn't consider that the cases were sufficiently different to make the analogy unconvincing.

It is true though that the flaw can be an overarching issue, as here, or a narrow issue. It's important to be prepared for both, depending on the specific reasoning in the stimulus. Sometimes the flaw is focused on the use of a single term. Other times it may be like here, where there's an overarching structure problem.

Hope that helps!