#8 - Caldwell: The government recently demolished a

[Applesaid]

hello!

I am having a trouble with this flawed in reasoning question.

After reading the stimulus, I thought "ok the argument is apparently flawed because even if the action does not benefit everyone it doesn't necessarily have to be immoral." Clearly, this is what the answer choice A says. But I also think E is a competitive contender. Why is the stimulus not a false dilemma?

Thanks for your help!

Celine

[KelseyWoods]

Hi Celine!

Caldwell isn't really treating two possible courses of action as if they were the only two options. I could see potentially arguing a False Dilemma flaw in the sense that he's assuming that if it doesn't benefit everyone, then it must have been immoral, even though it could have been morally neutral or moral in a different way. But that has more to do with assuming there are only two possible moral values, not with assuming two possible courses of action.

As you prephrased, answer choice (A) describes the flaw much better!

Does that make sense?

Best,
Kelsey

[SLF]

Hello,

As I go through practice questions, I constantly find myself struggling with "most vulnerable to criticism" questions...what the Logical Reasoning Bible calls "Flaw In Reasoning" questions.

Specifically, it seems like virtually none of the questions I encounter seem to match up with any of the 17 "common" patterns of flawed reasoning listed in the LR Bible.

So, as a specific example, that illustrates what I am talking about, LSAT test #52, Section 3, Question #8.

How do I attack/approach this specific question, how do I identify what the flaw is, and how do I identify what the correct answer is?

[Lucas Moreau]

Hello, SLF,

For these questions, you always want to try to find the "break" in the argument. In this case, the "break" lies in the logical leap between finding that the government's actions were not optimal for the community and concluding that the government's actions were immoral.

Look for conclusions that bring in new terms. There was no premise, in this one, that talked about what would make an action moral or immoral. Morality was a new term. Caldwell therefore must have been working under an unstated assumption: any actions that are not optimal for everyone involved are always immoral. The argument does not perfectly flow unless that is assumed to be true.

If A is true, however, that counters that assumption. It suggests the possibility of actions that aren't to the most of everyone's benefit and yet are still morally permissible - in other words, not immoral. If there are such actions, then Caldwell cannot properly conclude that the government's action is immoral purely on the fact that it is not to the most of everyone's benefit.

Other Flaw questions work like this. Look for new terms, mistakes in causal and conditional reasoning, broad generalizations, attacks on people rather than arguments, and generally anything that doesn't address the substance of the argument. You can get practice by watching political shows on television: they're just full of flawed arguments.

Hope that helps,
Lucas Moreau
PowerScore

[SLF]

Thank you for your reply.

In condensing your reply down to general rules of thumb, I have:

Tip: try to find the "break" in the argument...the logical leap between finding one thing and concluding something else...or the logical leap between something unstated and something concluded.

Tip: look for conclusions that bring in new terms not detailed in a premise...if something is not talked about, then there is an assumption (can we also say there is sometimes a belief or a principle?) in place and the argument does not flow perfectly unless the assumption (belief/principle?) is assumed to be true.

Tip: look for new, unspecified, "un-premised" terms

Tip: look for mistakes in causal and conditional reasoning

Tip: look for broad generalizations

Tip: look for anything that does not address the substance of the argument

Thank you Lucas for your well-thought-out replies. I deeply appreciate it.

[Sherry001]

Hi ,
Could someone please help me get rid of E, it's bugging me .

1- government demolishes a navel base
2- the complex could've have been a great benefit to many people

C: what the government did was inefficient and immoral .

I see why A is correct, just because the government chose to to keep the complex doesn't make his actions immoral. Maybe he wanted to do build a shelter for the homeless and what not. ( that's how I was able to choose A) but when I got to E - I had an omg moment


E) inappropriately treats two possible courses of action as if they were the only options.
Well I thought yeah, the author only considered destroying it or keeping it . What if government wanted to rebuild something else. ? Weird .


Thanks
Sherry

[BethRibet]

Hi Sherry,

Thanks for the question. I can see your point, and can understand why E would trip you up. But I wouldn't say that the stimulus actually does only conceive of two options. It just assumes that destroying something beneficial is immoral, not specifically because the author is obviously assuming there is no alternative other than destroying or not destroying.

The obvious point we might make to point out how demolishing could still be beneficial would be to say "what if the government built something better?", which is why the answer choice looks appealing. But the primary flaw here is drawing a conclusion about morality without enough support or a principle that tells us when something is moral. So it could be true that the author actually envisioned alternatives, and just didn't care based on assumption that anything that destroys something beneficial, for any reason (even to accomplish something else good), is immoral. The crucial flaw, again, is that we can't draw conclusions about morality when we don't know what makes an action moral or immoral.

Hope this helps!
Beth