#4 - Biologist: A careful study of the behavior of six

[mpoulson]

Hello,

I chose E instead of C. I chose E because from my perspective the stimulus seemed to hold the author in higher esteem than the critics. However, the reason this could be wrong is that the stimulus uses the word "higher standard" which I interpreted as esteem. Nevertheless, this was incorrect and for that reason was C. Yet, the stimulus overall doesn't give much actual text the author so it doesn't seem to fit as nicely as E. I hope I have expressed my question clearly enough for you to answer. Thank you.

V/r,

Micah

[Clay Cooper]

Hi Micah,

Thanks for your question.

Answer choice E is incorrect because, simply put, answer choice C is correct.

Remember, any information about the character, motivations, integrity, professional standing, etc of anyone advancing an argument is totally irrelevant to the actual merits of that argument. So, even if E were true and the stimulus held the study's author to a higher standard than that to which it held the critics, it wouldn't matter; we shouldn't be considering either of these individuals in the first place.

Such considerations are off-limits, and that's why answer choice C is correct - the argument's biggest weakness is that it makes claims about the validity of the study's conclusions based only on information about the study's author's qualifications, which we know to be useless as evidence.

Even if E were true, it would not be a flaw in the argument to hold the study's author to a higher standard than the critics, because the author of the stimulus sides with the author of the study; therefore, to hold the study's author to a higher standard than that required of the critics would actually make the argument more persuasive.

I hope that helps.

[mpoulson]

I see your rationale. However, on previous questions in LSAT history it could be considered a flaw to rely on the reputation of an author or scientist rather than the actual evidence of the argument. Am I mistaken in that? I do see why it may be plausible to respect the opinion of the author since he developed the study, but to do so without explaining why the critics's claims are invalid seems to be a real flaw in a argument.

[Nikki Siclunov]

Micah,

You may be overthinking this a bit The argument is structured as follows:

• Premise: The study’s author is well regarded professionally.
  
  Conclusion: Critics of the study are wrong to doubt its results.

The only justification for calling the critics wrong (despite their accurate claim that the sample size was too small) is that the study's author is well-regarded. This is a classic Appeal to Authority fallacy, making answer choice (C) the obvious choice.

Don't forget - Flaw questions belong to the Prove family of questions. Can we actually prove that the argument holds the study’s author to a higher standard than it holds the study’s critics? No, the two sources were never explicitly compared in this way, as the critics' qualifications were never overtly discussed. This should be sufficient to eliminate answer choice (E). Perhaps the argument assumes that the study's author is more qualified than the critics, but even this would be difficult to substantiate.

Hope this helps!

[mpoulson]

Thank you. I appreciate the help. I think I simply misunderstood the holding the author to a higher standard to mean that the argument was appealing to the authority of the author rather than the weight of the evidence.

[actionjackson]

Hello powerscore, I also chose answer choice E while having both E and C as contenders here. My thinking here for choosing E over C was that I saw C as a half right-half wrong type answer. While C asserts that the stimulus "focuses its attention on the study's author rather than on the study itself" That last part (with the added italics) seemed to me as disqualifying this answer choice. The stimulus did focus on the critique of the study's small sample size. I noticed the appeal to authority-ish flaw, with the premise indicating "the study's author is well regarded professionally and has been doing excellent work for years" and E seemed to be describing this flawed appeal to authority.

[Jonathan Evans]

Hi, actionjackson,

Good question. Let's address it from two angles.

First, the Biologist does bring up the critics' observation about the small study size; however, she does not actually address the substance of this criticism. Rather, she dismisses it out of hand with what you correctly identify as an appeal to authority. Thus, it is accurate to contend the argument focuses on the merits of the study's author rather than on the study itself. This is precisely what the argument does: it brings up a problem but attempts to address this problem with a diversion that does nothing to attend to the problem with the sample size.

Next, let's discuss answer choice (E). Here we have an attractive wrong answer in that it seems to match the appeal to authority you noted. However, in consideration of the meaning of this statement, we actually do not have a match for an appeal to authority.

...holds the study's author to a higher standard than it holds the study's critics

Literally, this means that the Biologist would have been harsher on the study's author than she is on the study's critics. There is no such comparison here. If anything, the Biologist seems to excuse the flaw in the study based on the merits of the study's author, ipso facto holding this author to a rather low standard.

Further, there is no standard to which the Biologist is holding the critics. Instead, the Biologist dismisses the critics' concern, but there is no source/ad hominem attack on their integrity.

I hope this helps clear this up!

[Littletiger1888]

Hi - could you please explain why (A) is wrong? From the stimulus it says "lizards such as chameleons" so it seems like it's generalizing lizards as a whole by a sample of only 6 chameleons.

[George George]

@Littletiger1888

Sure! I can see two ways of eliminating answer choice (A). First off, and more to your point, @Littletiger1888, the phrase "such as" does not make a generalization. As used here, "such as" is a phrase that indicates one particular case is similar to other cases in a particular respect. So, the Biologist is saying that the study's conclusion was about lizards like chameleons who also "bask in the sun," not a generalization from chameleons to all lizards (including the shade-loving ones!).

Second, the flaw in the Biologist's argument is distinguishable from any flaws in the study the Biologist cites. (The Biologist is not the same viewpoint as the study.) The Biologist's argument is that the critics are wrong to doubt the study (sentence 2/conclusion) because the author is a well-regarded professional (sentence 3/premise). (In other words, even though this stimulus includes the study in the first sentence, it ends up functioning as a Background statement. The Biologist's argument is just in sentences 2 and 3.) Q4 is asking you to find the flaw in that argument. The flaw is an inappropriate appeal to authority. Even though the study's author is a "well-regarded professional," it is still possible the critics are right that the study was flawed (i.e. because of the small sample size!).

The takeaway here is that some LSAT stimuli function like Reading Comprehension passages. They have multiple points of view, and, just like in Reading Comprehension, you're being tested on your ability to keep those points of view separate. So, sometimes you'll need to VIEWSTAMP the stimulus! Here, you should pick out 3 points of view: (1) a study (sentence 1); (2) critics (in sentence 2); and (3) the Biologist (in sentences 2 and 3).