#17 - Commissioner: I have been incorrectly criticized for

[est15]

Can you explain why B is correct and A is incorrect? If someone uses another source to back up his or her argument but doesn't mention anything about bias, are we always supposed to assume that he or she is taking lack of bias for granted? I also don't understand why B is correct. Thanks.

[KelseyWoods]

Hi est15!

Answer choice (B) is correct because the author does not draw a conclusion from "incomplete recollections." Incomplete recollections would involve the author saying he remembers only a part of some event or information but he is drawing a conclusion based on that event or information anyway. The commissioner is not drawing a conclusion on incomplete memories, but rather he is drawing a conclusion based on an incomplete reading of a report.

Answer choice (A) is incorrect because it describes a flaw in the argument. We don't need to always assume that if an author cites a source without mentioning bias that the author is taking lack of bias for granted. LSAT authors frequently use sources that there don't really have a reason for us to suspect they are biased. But in the case of a power plant issue, a neighborhood association would have a specific viewpoint and would not be able to be neutral on the issue. The neighborhood association is probably mostly concerned with the power plant's direct effect on the immediate neighborhood it is located in. But there are other concerned parties (such as consumers it might provide power to outside the neighborhood, the workers employed by the plant, environmental groups, local businesses, etc.) who might have very different but no less important viewpoints on the issue. The commissioner should have looked at information provided by multiple viewpoints before making a conclusion on the matter since many other people besides those in the neighborhood association are affected by his decision.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[srcline@noctrl.edu]

Hello,

So just for clarification, we turn this into a except question right? So the question stem would be " the commissioner's argument is vulnerable to which one of the following EXCEPT:

SO I immediately ruled out D and E.

So C would be incorrect b/c the commissioner tells us that they based their evidence on the report by the NAssociation.

But I am having a hard time seeing how A is an flaw that was committed into the argument.

This seems like a very big leap, how can we infer location in this stimulus.
Thankyou
Sarah

[David Boyle]

Hello,

So just for clarification, we turn this into a except question right? So the question stem would be " the commissioner's argument is vulnerable to which one of the following EXCEPT:

SO I immediately ruled out D and E.

So C would be incorrect b/c the commissioner tells us that they based their evidence on the report by the NAssociation.

But I am having a hard time seeing how A is an flaw that was committed into the argument.

This seems like a very big leap, how can we infer location in this stimulus.
Thankyou
Sarah

Hello Sarah,

I am not entirely sure what you mean by "infer location," but I think I can still help here without that info. Yes, this is basically an "except" question, but keep in mind that LEAST does allow more latitude in this case than a straight Except. since that might be going a little too far. Maybe all the choices indicate a vulnerability, but the right answer is the one that is the least vulnerable.

With (A), anybody could be biased, pretty much. But as Kelsey notes above, in a contentious situation like building a power plant, it's almost certain that a neighborhood association will have it's own preference (which is that the power plant be built far away. There's a name for this in the real world, too: NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard)). So, the neighborhood association's report could easily be biased, and when the Commissioner just blindly accepted the report, that was a mistake. That's what answer choice (A) is driving at—you can't just accept the views of one of the parties to an issue without considering that they might not be giving you a fair view of the issue. So answer A is a flaw, that the commissioner should have been more careful to account for the association's possible bias.

Hope this helps,
David

[srcline@noctrl.edu]

Hello David

How can we know location from this stimulus? Also ,cant least be substituted for Except? I picked D because the answer choice says It hastily concludes that the associations reports is accurate, with out having studied it in detail.

Then in the stimulus it states that " I have not studied it thoroughly, I am sure that the information it contains is accurate.

Thankyou for your explanations
Sarah

[Nikki Siclunov]

Sarah,

As David and Kelsey both pointed out, this is a Flaw-EXCEPT question, where four of the answer choices will describe flaws that are present in the argument. Considering how poor this argument is, the nature of the stem makes perfect sense. Let's go through each answer choice:

Answer choice (A) suggests that the commissioner assumed the association's info to be unbiased. Is this a problem? You bet. The commissioner based his decision on the report prepared by the association, and indeed assumed that the info is accurate and legit. But what if it isn't? What if it's distorted by bias? That would immediately cast doubt on the reliability of the evidence used to justify the conclusion, and undermine the commissioner's argument. Therefore, answer choice (A) describes an unwarranted assumption ("takes for granted that...") upon which the argument depends.

Answer choice (B) does not describe logical fallacy, as there is no evidence the commissioner relied on incomplete recollections. Sure, he didn't study the report thoroughly, but that's different from saying that he didn't remember it well. Therefore, answer choice (B) is the correct answer to this Flaw-EXCEPT question.

Answer choice (C) describes another fallacy - the unwarranted assumption that the association's report is the only evidence that needs to be considered. Indeed, the commissioner only considers the report and nothing else; what if other sources of evidence end up pointing in a different direction? This is a problem, thus answer choice (C) must be ruled out.

Answer choice (D) accuses the author of hastily concluding that the association's report is accurate. Yeah, he did - "I'm sure it's accurate" doesn't strike me as particularly thorough, well-reasoned justification. So, answer choice (D) must also be eliminated.

Answer choice (E) refers to the last sentence, whose relevance to the argument is tenuous at best: just because he agreed with some prior recommendation does not mean he should agree with this one as well. The parallel between the two is virtually nonexistent, except for the fact that the same association was the source of both recommendations. Consequently, answer choice (E) describes another assumption that the commissioner should not have made.

Clearly, each of the four incorrect answer choices describe a problem in the commissioner's argument. The one that doesn't describe such a problem is answer choice (B), which is the correct answer choice to this Flaw-EXCEPT question.

Hope this helps!

[srcline@noctrl.edu]

Hello Nikki

Okay I think I get this now.

Thankyou
Sarah

[Linabear218]

Hello,

I had a hard time understanding what the question stem was asking me. Could someone explain? I also want to know why E is wrong. I was looking at B but did not chose it in the end.

[Luke Haqq]

Hi Linabear218!

To your first question, this is a flaw in the reasoning except question. That means that four incorrect answer choices will identify a flaw in reasoning in the stimulus. The one correct answer will not identify a flaw found in the stimulus.

To your second question, answer choice (E) states that the commissioner "takes for granted that agreeing with the association's past recommendation helps to justify agreeing with its current recommendation." In the stimulus, the commissioner claims that "I have been incorrectly criticized for having made my decision on the power plant issue prematurely." In support of this, the commissioner cites to relying on a neighborhood association's report and also adds that the commissioner had followed this association's advice on an unrelated jail relocation project. But why should it matter that the commissioner relied on this association in the past? This is like saying "I'm justified in relying on Person A's advice because I relied on it in the past." It might have been unreliable advice in the past, just as it might be unreliable now.

In contrast, answer choice (B) states that the commissioner "draws a conclusion about the recommendations of the association from incomplete recollections." This is effectively saying that faulty memory is at issue. But nothing like that appears in the stimulus. Since this answer choice does not identify a flaw contained in the stimulus, that confirms that it's the right answer choice.

[wisnain]

Hi, I chose (C) because I understood the commissioner to consider the association’s report as “sufficient” evidence for his conclusion, not the “only” evidence. He never stated it was the only evidence. Am I misunderstanding something?