- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8950
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Tue Feb 23, 2016 12:00 am
#32452
Complete Question Explanation
Flaw in the Reasoning—CE. The correct answer choice is (D)
In this stimulus, Peter is discussing recent evidence about moderate alcohol consumption. It turns out that when we consume alcohol, it creates in our bodies an environment that is inhospitable for certain bacteria that can cause illness. This environment is said to be just one of the “beneficial effects” of moderate alcohol consumption:
MAC = moderate alcohol consumption
BE (IEB) = beneficial effects, including an inhospitable environment in the human body for certain bacteria that can cause illness
Cause
Effect
MAC 
BE (IEB)
From this evidence, Peter optimistically concludes that, on balance, alcohol consumption is beneficial. This conclusion is flawed, because it shifts from evidence of moderate alcohol consumption to alcohol consumption without restriction. The broadly stated conclusion that alcohol consumption is, on balance, beneficial is also suspect. The stimulus used the plural “effects,” but did not make clear how many beneficial effects result from alcohol consumption, nor how those beneficial effects offset what LSAC will likely assume we understand to be the negative effects of alcohol consumption.
We know from the question stem that this is a Flaw in the Reasoning question. Our prephrase is that the argument is flawed because its expansive conclusion goes beyond the more constrained evidence of a single benefit of moderate alcohol consumption.
Answer choice (A): The argument is about the effect of alcohol consumption, not about the intent of people in consuming alcohol.
Answer choice (B): This answer choice fails the Fact Test, because the argument does not “draw a comparison,” let alone a comparison “based on popular belief.”
Answer choice (C): While this answer choice passes the Fact Test, it is incorrect for another reason. It passes the Fact Test, because it accurately states that the argument does not “consider methods of achieving the same beneficial effects that do not involve alcohol.” However, it is incorrect because it improperly describes this as a failure. On the contrary, other potential methods of achieving the same effects are not relevant to the argument, which concluded, though improperly, only that a particular beneficial effect made the consumption of alcohol, on balance, beneficial.
Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice, because it describes Peter’s error in reaching a general conclusion about alcohol consumption from evidence that was limited to moderate alcohol consumption.
Answer choice (E): As with answer choice (C), this choice passes the Fact Test, but is incorrect nonetheless. It passes the Fact Test, because the argument did not discuss the possibility that “alcohol may have no effect on many bacteria that cause illness in human beings.” However, the argument was not flawed because of its silence on this topic, which is not relevant to the conclusion. The conclusion did not make a broad claim that alcohol consumption can attack all, many, or even most bacteria that cause illness. Rather, Peter spoke generally about the “beneficial effects” of alcohol consumption, one of which happened to be creating an inhospitable environment for a certain bacteria.
Flaw in the Reasoning—CE. The correct answer choice is (D)
In this stimulus, Peter is discussing recent evidence about moderate alcohol consumption. It turns out that when we consume alcohol, it creates in our bodies an environment that is inhospitable for certain bacteria that can cause illness. This environment is said to be just one of the “beneficial effects” of moderate alcohol consumption:
MAC = moderate alcohol consumption
BE (IEB) = beneficial effects, including an inhospitable environment in the human body for certain bacteria that can cause illness
Cause
Effect MAC
BE (IEB)From this evidence, Peter optimistically concludes that, on balance, alcohol consumption is beneficial. This conclusion is flawed, because it shifts from evidence of moderate alcohol consumption to alcohol consumption without restriction. The broadly stated conclusion that alcohol consumption is, on balance, beneficial is also suspect. The stimulus used the plural “effects,” but did not make clear how many beneficial effects result from alcohol consumption, nor how those beneficial effects offset what LSAC will likely assume we understand to be the negative effects of alcohol consumption.
We know from the question stem that this is a Flaw in the Reasoning question. Our prephrase is that the argument is flawed because its expansive conclusion goes beyond the more constrained evidence of a single benefit of moderate alcohol consumption.
Answer choice (A): The argument is about the effect of alcohol consumption, not about the intent of people in consuming alcohol.
Answer choice (B): This answer choice fails the Fact Test, because the argument does not “draw a comparison,” let alone a comparison “based on popular belief.”
Answer choice (C): While this answer choice passes the Fact Test, it is incorrect for another reason. It passes the Fact Test, because it accurately states that the argument does not “consider methods of achieving the same beneficial effects that do not involve alcohol.” However, it is incorrect because it improperly describes this as a failure. On the contrary, other potential methods of achieving the same effects are not relevant to the argument, which concluded, though improperly, only that a particular beneficial effect made the consumption of alcohol, on balance, beneficial.
Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice, because it describes Peter’s error in reaching a general conclusion about alcohol consumption from evidence that was limited to moderate alcohol consumption.
Answer choice (E): As with answer choice (C), this choice passes the Fact Test, but is incorrect nonetheless. It passes the Fact Test, because the argument did not discuss the possibility that “alcohol may have no effect on many bacteria that cause illness in human beings.” However, the argument was not flawed because of its silence on this topic, which is not relevant to the conclusion. The conclusion did not make a broad claim that alcohol consumption can attack all, many, or even most bacteria that cause illness. Rather, Peter spoke generally about the “beneficial effects” of alcohol consumption, one of which happened to be creating an inhospitable environment for a certain bacteria.
