#12 - Journalist: A book claiming that a new drug has

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

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

This journalist discusses a new drug, and a book that claims that it has dangerous side effects. A
famous doctor has been critical of the book but, as the journalist points out, the doctor happens to
work for the producer of the drug in question. Since this means that the doctor has personal reasons
to criticize the book and defend the drug, the journalist concludes, there is no reason to reject the
books’ claims.

The doctor has a personal interest in the issue, but this fact should not in itself dismiss the doctor’s
claims. Without further information about the claims or the drug, the journalist’s conclusion is not
valid.

The question stem asks for the flaw in the journalist’s reasoning; the flaw is that the journalist
presumes that personal interest cannot overlap with a valid point—just because the doctor might
have personal reasons to criticize the book, that does not preclude the possibility that the critique has
merit.

Answer choice (A): The journalist’s argument does not require specification of every claim in the
book that is questioned by the physician, so this choice cannot represent the flaw in the journalist’s
reasoning.

Answer choice (B): The journalist does not presume that anyone with any association to the
company is unable to weigh the evidence of possible hazards. Rather, the journalist makes the valid
point that the doctor, who works for the company that makes the drug in question, has personal
reasons to be critical. The journalist’s error is in completely dismissing the doctor’s statements based
solely on the doctor’s personal association with the company.

Answer choice (C): This choice suggests that the journalist should have considered the possibility
that the doctor had personal reasons to be in favor of the critical claims about the drug. There
would be no reason to consider such a possibility, in part because the doctor works for the company
that makes the drug. Without some reason to do so, the journalist need not consider this outlier
possibility.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. As prephrased, the journalist does not
consider the possibility that, beyond any personal reasons the doctor might have to critique the book,
the doctor’s comments might still have a legitimate basis.

Answer choice (E): This choice suggests that the journalist should have considered dismissing the
doctor’s claims for reasons other than personal bias. This is not relevant to the journalist’s argument,
that the doctor’s personal reasons to dismiss the book’s claims are sufficient for the journalist to
dismiss the doctor’s claims.

[bli2016]

Hi, for this question, I had trouble distinguishing between answer choices B, D, and E. I eventually chose D because it was more familiar to me (the classic ad hominem flaw), but I still don't understand why B and E are wrong. Could someone explain the flaws of B and E please? Thanks!

[Kristina Moen]

Hi Bli,

Glad to. One of the best ways to study Flaw in the Reasoning questions (whether you got it correct or not) is to look at all the answer choices so you understand what type of flaw they are describing. That way when you see those answer choices on the test, you've already done the work of understanding what they mean! You are going about it the right way!

One important thing to address here is that the conclusion is "The critique does not provide legitimate grounds to reject the book's claims." So the conclusion is really that the physician's evidence is not legitimate. It is NOT that the drug does or does not actually have dangerous side effects, or that the book is correct or not correct.

"It takes for granted that anyone even remotely associated with a company that manufactures a drug is unable to fairly weigh evidence concerning possible dangerous side effects of that drug." - The conclusion here is that the physician's evidence is not legitimate, not whether or not he fairly weighed the evidence. Yes, the author claims that the physician has personal reasons to deny the drug's dangerousness. However, the conclusion is that the evidence itself is illegitimate .

"It overlooks the possibility that even if a critique does not provide legitimate grounds to reject a claim, this failure need not be the result of any personal biases of the author." This would look more like this "The author does not provide legitimate grounds to reject the book, so he must have been personally biased." Here, it's the opposite. The author says the physician is personally biased... so his evidence must be illegitimate!