#5 - The museum's night security guard maintains that the

[GLMDYP]

Hi Powerscore!
For this question, I just want to know what is the flaw there in the stimulus. Nothing more, just where the flaw is.
Thanks!

[David Boyle]

Hi Powerscore!
For this question, I just want to know what is the flaw there in the stimulus. Nothing more, just where the flaw is.
Thanks!

Hello,

Is the narrator reliable, so to speak? That is, is the security guard telling the truth?

David

[reop6780]

I chose the wrong answer of A for this question. Maybe I did not accurately find out the flaw in the stimuli. For that matter, I cannot distinguish answers A from B, which is the correct answer. What would be the difference between these two answers?

[Steve Stein]

Hi,

The problem with the stimulus in that example is that the author is treating a claim as if it is absolute fact:

The guard says they didn't enter above ground level, so they must have gone underground...

Correct answer choice (B): The competitors claim that they store did not even break even, so they must have lost money on every sale.

Answer choice (A) is a flaw (someone could actually win such a contest without coming in first place in either individual category), but it is not the flaw found in the stimulus.

I hope that's helpful! Please let me know whether this is clear--thanks!

~Steve

[reop6780]

It was very clear explanation for me. Thanks!

[Johnclem]

Hi could someone please spot the flaw in this argument .

1- the museums night security maintains that the thieves didn't enter at or above ground level .

C: the thieves must have gained access to the museum from below ground level .

At first I thought this is a false dilemma . As the author assumes there is no other possibility. But I mean there really isn't and so I thought this argument didn't even have a flaw . Then I thought well what if the museum gard took a bathroom break and missed it? But wouldn't that be attacking the premises . ( i thought we have to accept the premises true )

Please help !
John

[Dave Killoran]

Hey John,

Let me refer you to a longer discussion of this problem, in our LR discussion for each test, at lsat/viewtopic.php?f=692&t=3890. That might help clarify this problem, which rests on whether the security guard is reliable (note the language: "maintains" ... "must").

Thanks!

[ngreen221]

Hello PS,

I answered this incorrectly, choosing answer choice E but keeping B as a contender. I can see that this is a False Dilemma Flaw with the fact that "the thieves must have gained access to the museum from below ground level", that doesn't necessarily need to be the case.

I want to know what the difference between E and B is since they both involve false dilemmas. Could the issue be validity?

Thanks always!

[Adam Tyson]

I wouldn't call answer E a False Dilemma, ngreen221, and I'm not sure that's the label I would apply to the flaw in the stimulus, either (but maybe). A true False Dilemma is where the author treats two options as being all-inclusive, when other options might be available, like "I won't vacation in the Bahamas so I must vacation in Madrid" or "my rent isn't going up, so it must be going down". For the stimulus to fit into that mold, it would probably be more like "the thieves did not come in above ground level, so they must have come in below it" (leaving out the possibility that the came in AT ground level).

I suppose we could say that the author does fail to consider an alternative - that the guard was wrong - and in that sense it feels like a false dilemma, but I would be more inclined to say that the author treats a claim as fact without sufficient evidence that it is, which is a type of evidence flaw.

One thing to remember, though, is not to get hung up on the labels that we apply to the flaws. It's great if you can clearly say "that's a Source Argument" or "this is an Error of Division", if doing so helps give you a shortcut to understanding the argument and selecting the right answer, but having the right label isn't as important as understanding the underlying structure of the argument, including what's wrong with it. Here, the underlying problem, whatever you want to call it, is that we took the guard at his word without questioning whether he might be mistaken. Look for an answer that has that sort of problem, rather than focusing on the name of the flaw, and you'll have an easier time of it.

Answer E has no element of undue reliance on someone or something. It doesn't base its conclusion on a claim that may or may not be accurate. Instead, it comes up with a completely unsubstantiated claim pretty much out of thin air. Who says there must be plans for late questionnaires? Where did that idea come from? Who did we rely on who might be wrong? It's another evidence flaw, but the wrong type. Maybe a general lack of relevant evidence?

Answer B bases its conclusion on the claims made by the competitors, and those claims might be wrong. There's the same flaw!

[anureet]

Hello,
My only question is that in Logical Reasoning, we are taught to never question the premise. The basic rule of the LSAT was that the authors never lies and all premises are treated as fact (the truth). So how can we assume that the security guards claim is wrong or not a fact.