#2 - Columnist: An information design expert has argued that

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Flaw in the Reasoning—CE. The correct answer choice is (D)

The stimulus has a predictable argument/counterargument structure. An information design expert blames a popular presentation-graphics software (GIAPS) for leading people to create ineffective presentations, but the author rejects this line of reasoning as absurd. Why? Because GIAPS is just a tool, and cannot therefore be blamed for bad presentations.
The expert’s argument and the columnist’s response both contain causal reasoning, as they attempt to explain what causes ineffective presentations:

• Cause Effect
  Design expert: Tool (GIAPS)
  Ineffective presentations
  Columnist: Users of the tool

The columnist rejects the expert’s theory by claiming that tools cannot bear responsibility for the products people design by using them. But what if a tool is so defective that it fails to serve its intended purpose? It would be illogical to blame the users for the bad results, as they are merely using a tool that is incapable of helping them create efficient presentations. The columnist’s conclusion is flawed, because it does not provide a strong enough rationale for rejecting the competing causal explanation presented by the expert.

Answer choice (A): This answer choice describes a self-contradiction. No such error is committed here.

Answer choice (B): The author does not assume that effective presentations are good presentations, only that ineffective presentations are bad presentations. This answer choice is a Mistaken Negation of an implicit assumption, which is not even central to the logic of this argument.

Answer choice (C): The author clearly defends GIAPS, but does not necessarily endorse it. Additionally, her defense is based on more than the alleged popularity of GIAPS.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. If a tool does not effectively perform its intended function, then those who use the tool cannot be blamed for creating a bad product. Answer choice (D) describes a possibility that, if true, would seriously weaken the argument, because it presents an alternative cause (bad tool) for the observed effect (bad presentations).

Answer choice (E): This answer choice describes a fallacy where the author attacks the person (or source) of an argument, instead of the argument that they advance. There is no evidence of a Source Argument flaw here.

[lday4]

Can you explain why D is correct? I see how the other answers are not great, but am having trouble seeing why this one is correct.

Thanks!

[Stephanie Oswalt]

Hi lday,

Thanks for your question. Generally speaking, we need a bit more input from you before we delve into a discussion of a particular LR question. Ultimately, it won't be us who are taking the test; it's you! Our goal is to help you cultivate the analytical ability to approach these questions on your own, which is why you need to help us help you first.

Here's what I'd like you to do:

1. Describe your approach to the stimulus. Did you understand the argument, if any, from a structural standpoint? What is the conclusion, and what evidence is the author using in support of that conclusion?

2. Did you prephrase an answer to the question in the stem? If so, what was your prephrase?

3. What exactly made the two answer choices you have listed particularly attractive? Did you use any question type-specific test (e.g. Assumption Negation Technique) to differentiate between them?
Thanks!
Stephanie

[beeryslurs]

Hi. I wonder whether choosing D means we're attacking the premise in the stimulus. The way I see it, the premise here is that "GIAPS cannot be responsible for bad presentations because it's just a tool," and the conclusion is "the responsibility must lie with those who use the tool poorly."

Is my analysis correct? And can we really attack the premise? Because I remember being told to take the premise as given. Thanks in advance!

[Jeremy Press]

Hi beeryslurs,

The premise is actually this: GIAPS is just a tool. Notice that answer choice D doesn't attack that baseline premise. Then, the author draws an intermediate conclusion (which can be a questionable element of reasoning, and definitely is questionable here): "so it cannot be responsible for bad presentations." GIAPS could be responsible, if what answer choice D is saying were true. This opens the author's line of reasoning, specifically the intermediate conclusion, to attack. And once that intermediate conclusion is questionable, of course (as you noted) the main conclusion is questionable as well.

I hope this helps!

Jeremy

[Albertlyu]

Hi beeryslurs,

The premise is actually this: GIAPS is just a tool. Notice that answer choice D doesn't attack that baseline premise. Then, the author draws an intermediate conclusion (which can be a questionable element of reasoning, and definitely is questionable here): "so it cannot be responsible for bad presentations." GIAPS could be responsible, if what answer choice D is saying were true. This opens the author's line of reasoning, specifically the intermediate conclusion, to attack. And once that intermediate conclusion is questionable, of course (as you noted) the main conclusion is questionable as well.

I hope this helps!

Jeremy

thank you Jeremy, this is of great help, I also had the confusion about "not touching the evidence" in flaw quesitons.

I am trying to categorize every flaw question i encounter just to be better at recongnizing new flaws in the future, please may I ask what flaw type this is one? as I couldn't put it into the usual types.

thanks.

Albert

[Albertlyu]

Hi lday,

Thanks for your question. Generally speaking, we need a bit more input from you before we delve into a discussion of a particular LR question. Ultimately, it won't be us who are taking the test; it's you! Our goal is to help you cultivate the analytical ability to approach these questions on your own, which is why you need to help us help you first.

Here's what I'd like you to do:

1. Describe your approach to the stimulus. Did you understand the argument, if any, from a structural standpoint? What is the conclusion, and what evidence is the author using in support of that conclusion?

2. Did you prephrase an answer to the question in the stem? If so, what was your prephrase?

3. What exactly made the two answer choices you have listed particularly attractive? Did you use any question type-specific test (e.g. Assumption Negation Technique) to differentiate between them?
Thanks!
Stephanie

hi Stephanie,

thank you for sharing this, could you please check if my understanding about the structure of this stimulus is correct?

Conclusion: The argument that using GIAPs leads to ineffective presentation is absurd.

1st Sub-conclusion(Support for main conclusion): The person who use the tool is responsible.

Support for 1st sub-conclusion(also the 2nd sub-conclusion): A tool can not be responsible.

Baseline evidence(support for the 2nd sub-conclusion): GIAPs is just a tool.

So if this breakdown is correct, I think besides the gap mentioned in the answer choice, there is another gap: from the 2nd sub-conclusion to the first, which the author assumes if a tool can not be responsible for ineffective presentation then the person who use the tool must be responsible. what if something else is responsible for the ineffective presentation, for instance, the computer system on which GIAPs runs.

So if there is an answer choice that says "the author assumes without justification that if a tool cannot be responsible then then the person who use the tool must be responsible." the answer choice would be correct?

thank you.

Albert

[Adam Tyson]

Your analysis looks pretty good, Albert, although I would not have expected an answer that challenged the sub-conclusion while leaving the main conclusion intact (the opposing claim would still be wrong even if the author failed to consider a third alternative besides the tool or the user being responsible). Focus your efforts on raising doubts about the main conclusion, simply because that is what the LSAT focuses on in these questions.

I want to address this statement:

I am trying to categorize every flaw question i encounter just to be better at recongnizing new flaws in the future

While I understand the desire to do this, I think it's not productive. I encourage my students to stay away from the trap of needing to label every flaw, because the labels are not the goal, but are only a shortcut to real understanding. I have seen plenty of flaws on this test that could arguably fit into multiple categories and be given different names, and I have seen many others that defy easy labeling. Instead of trying to categorize every flaw, try just describing them in your own words. If an easy label comes to mind (oh look, a Source Argument!), that's great, because it saves you from having to do more work to describe the problem. But if the name isn't apparent, just describe the problem the way an answer choice would, and waste no time on trying to fit it into a particular category. That way lies madness!

I could force this flaw into a category - I might call it some sort of "Evidence Flaw," and it even has an element of "Circular Reasoning" to it (the tool cannot be responsible because it is a tool and thus cannot be responsible) - but I wouldn't bother, because the answer won't use those words anyway, and the flaw is pretty clear (the tool could still cause a problem, and the author has given no reason to believe that a tool cannot be responsible).

Short answer: don't focus on the names/categories/labels. Focus on understanding why the premises do not support the conclusion.

Keep up the good work!

[Albertlyu]

Thank you, Adam! duly noted.

[bluebell]

I chose A because of where it says “autopresentation.” If that feature is used to make ineffective presentations then it bears some responsibility. That’s where I think the claims are inconsistent with each other.