#8 - The senator has long held to the general principle that

[reop6780]

Hello,

Even though I read the explanation on "circular reasoning" in the LR bible, I cannot notice it in the stimuli easily.

According to the bible, "circular reasoning" occurs when premise equals conclusion thereby making no support for the conclusion.

I see this stimuli can include "circular reasoning," but I am confused with "internal contradiction" as well.

I chose answer B believing that this stimuli includes "internal contradiction."

As far as I understood, "internal contradiction" occurs when there are two contradicting statements coexist.

Since the senator mentioned true work of art cannot be obscene, I thought his later justification "accepting the principle by saying that.." was against his previous statement.

Well... he does repeat himself.

What would be the best way to distinguish between "circular reasoning" and "internal contradiction" though I realize they must be completely different concepts...

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Hyun,

This is also a tricky question. The Circular Reasoning exists because he does, as you say, repeat himself:

• Premise: True work of art Obscene
  
  Conclusion: Obscene True work of art

Because a statement and its contrapositive are identical, this is Circular. One form of Circular Reasoning is then to simply repeat oneself in the premise and in the conclusion.

Note that this differs from a classic contrapositive because a contrapositive is built around two premise before drawing a conclusion:

• Premise: True work of art Obscene
  
  Premise: Obscene
  
  Conclusion: True work of art

Finally, an Internal Contradiction directly contradicts itself (not repeats itself). Here's what that would somewhat look like using this argument's pieces:

• Premise: True work of art Obscene
  
  Premise: True work of art Obscene

If the same speaker made both statements, he would be contradicting himself in saying that true works of art are one thing, and then also the very opposite thing (and no, let's not open up the idea that art can have multiple characteristics--I'm just trying to get across the idea of saying opposite, conflicting things in the same argument ).

Thanks!

[reop6780]

I'm really impressed by your explanation!

Thank you so much !

[heartofsunshine]

Hi there!

After reading I immediately thought "circular reasoning" and then second guessed it. I narrowed this down to C and D. D, being the answer choice for circular reasoning and C being another one I couldn't figure out how to disprove, eventually choosing C.

I thought maybe C was the flaw because the argument only depends on the senator's personal viewpoint and authority and doesn't offer anything else for consideration. Can you help me know how to eliminate answer C?

Thank you!

[Claire Horan]

Hi heartofsunshine,

Although the senator holds to his own views, this isn't what is meant by the "appeal to authority" flaw. In this context, that flaw might look like this statement: "I'm a senator, so I'm an expert on what art is obscene and what is not." Note that the statement explicitly relies on the senator's position. Also, "appeal to authority" is used as a flaw on the LSAT most commonly when the authority's expertise does not lend itself to the conclusion being reached. For example, appealing to a lawyer's authority would be flawed if the conclusion required knowledge of orthodontics because lawyers are not in a better position than anyone else to know about orthodontics. Other types of appeal to authority are appeal to tradition ("It's always been this way, so it must be right.") or appeal to the majority ("Most people think this, so it's true."

I hope that answers your question!

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Heart,

You might also be helped by the podcasts we did covering Flaws, at http://www.powerscore.com/lsat/podcast/. Episode 26 covers Appeal fallacies specifically.

Thanks!