#14 - Joshua Smith's new novel was criticized by the book

[reop6780]

I chose answer A based upon "like so many ...in the past."

I understand that answer D does describe a flaw in that "each one of the incidents.." does not prove plausibility of the whole story.

However, I still think answer A points out a flaw in the stimuli too...

I need an explanation why answer A is incorrect.

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Hyun,

Answer choice (A) can be tricky, but it doesn't describe an actual flaw in the argument.

The section of the stimulus that you cite makes it look like a Source Argument will be in play (and thus would be justification for choosing (A)), but, here's the key: in a Source Argument, they use just statements about the source to dismiss an argument. Is that what they do here? No, they actually use the plausibility of each of the incidents in the novel as the reason to reject the criticism. So, it's not really a source argument because they use reasoning to reject the claim. As it turns out, their reasoning is weak by itself, but at that point it becomes a very different issue (as described in (D)) from the one described in (A).

Please let me know if that helps. Thanks!

[reop6780]

Yes, I needed that distinction !

Thank you so much, Dave !

[AG23]

Can someone tell me why B is wrong.

[James Finch]

Hi AG,

(B) is saying that the argument is assuming that people can't agree about something that is factually incorrect, ie that flat-earthers don't actually agree with each other because the earth isn't actually flat. This line of reasoning isn't in the stimulus at all; the actual flaw is the part-to-whole issue that (D) describes, whereby the stimulus assumes that just because any single incident happening to a person is plausible, having all the incidents happen to a person must be plausible as well.

Hope this helps!

[kevin.hussain24]

Hello PowerScore,
can someone explain to me why answer E is wrong? and why is D is correct?
I was debating between E and D.
Thank You
Kevin H

[KelseyWoods]

Hi Kevin!

To identify a flaw, you should always identify the conclusion, identify the premises, and ask yourself, why don't the premises as stated fully prove the conclusion as stated? In this case, the conclusion is that the criticism that Smith's new novel is implausible is unwarranted. Why does the author tell us that criticism is unwarranted? Because each individual incident in the novel is something that could have happened to someone or other. So why isn't that premise enough to prove that conclusion? Well just because each individual incident may be plausible, that doesn't mean that having all the incidents happen to one person in one novel is plausible. It's a classic part to whole flaw. The author has assumed that just because something is true of the individual parts of the story, it must be true of the story as a whole. Answer choice (D) is correct because it describes this flaw nicely.

Answer choice (E) is incorrect simply because it does not describe that part to whole flaw. Rather, the situation in answer choice (E) sounds more similar to a circular flaw. In a circular argument, the premises and the conclusion are basically just restatements of each other (e.g., "I must be telling the truth because I'm not lying"). The premise and conclusion that we have in our stimulus are not simply restatements because there's a part to whole differentiation (i.e., each individual part is plausible, so the whole is plausible). Incidentally, the LSAT loves to throw answer choices describing circular reasoning flaws into their Flaw in the Reasoning questions. It's a very common incorrect answer choice because it usually sounds vague enough that it tempts test takers who are unsure as to what the actual flaw is. It is much less common as a correct answer choice (meaning it doesn't show up in a stimulus argument very often).

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[gingerale]

I was stuck between (D) and (E) and ended up going with (E). I'm still a little confused as to why (D) is a better choice than (E). I see how (D) could be interpreted as indicating a circular reasoning error, which I know is not present in the stimulus, but when I saw it, it made sense to me because maybe people disagreed over whether the incidents the hero got involved in were plausible or not and that was the source of the controversy as to whether or not the book as a whole was plausible. Is (E) incorrectly because it could be a flaw but does not necessarily have to be one, whereas (D) is more likely to be true?

[Robert Carroll]

gingerale,

The stimulus does not contain a Circular Reasoning flaw, which is what answer choice (E) describes. Note how you're describing why it's tempting: " it made sense to me because maybe people disagreed over whether the incidents the hero got involved in were plausible or not and that was the source of the controversy as to whether or not the book as a whole was plausible". What you're describing there is a Part/Whole flaw. That's what answer choice (D) says. So if your justification for why an answer is right commits you to another answer, it's pretty likely that other answer is in fact what you're looking for. I don't see anything in your justification of answer choice (E) that's about circular reasoning. Instead, it's all part/whole issues. So choose the answer that talks about that flaw.

Robert Carroll