#12 - The ancient Egyptian pharaoh Akhenaten, who had a

[Dave Killoran]

Complete Question Explanation

Flaw. The correct answer choice is (C).

The argument opens by claiming (drawing a conclusion) that the pharaoh Akhenaten as well-loved during his lifetime. What is the evidence (premises) for this claim? That documented reports from his palace guards show fierce loyalty.

The question you are asked is a Flaw in the Reasoning, and this can be an easy flaw to miss. However, watch how the terms shift in the argument: "well loved and highly respected by his subjects" is supported by "fierce loyalty shown to him by his palace guards." These groups are not the same, and this is the easiest way to see that there might be an issue with the argument.

So, what is the problem? Consider for a moment the nature of palace guards. They serve the pharaoh, and rely on him for their jobs. They likely benefit from the status of serving the pharaoh and possibly (likely) lead improved lives due to their jobs. The fact that they would show fierce loyalty is then no surprise. And of course, this expected fierce loyalty does not by itself prove the general population also loved Akhenaten.

In logical terms, they looked at a very specific group of people that was likely to be unrepresentative, and then used the views of this group to make a broader claim, which is then questionable.


Answer choice (A): The premise used does not contradict the conclusion, it just doesn't fully prove it.

Answer choice (B): As noted by Jeremy Press below, "Since answer choice B refers to the evidence that the argument relies on, let's look at that evidence. The evidence of the subjects' love and respect for Akhenaten comes from "reports written during Akhenaten's reign" of the loyalty his guards showed him. That evidence is not "in principle ... impossible to challenge," which is why answer choice B is wrong. Why is that evidence not impossible to challenge? Many possible reasons: we might look at those reports and ask who wrote them and what their motives were. We could use those motives to "challenge" whether the reports provide an accurate account of the palace guards' loyalty. We could also look at the reports and try to determine if what they say is unambiguous. Maybe there's another interpretation we could give to the words of the reports, or maybe the reports document other attitudes of the guards. Thus, the type of evidence the argument relies on (written evidence in reports) is, by its nature, always possible to challenge."

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. As discussed above, the premise isn't necessarily representative, and thus one cannot reliably make a broader claim based on that sample.

Answer choice (D): No, the term "ancient" does not play a key role in the argument. "Ancient" is referring to something that happened long ago, and everything discussed is from that same time period.

Answer choice (E): This answer could be referring to the idea of "loyalty," but there doesn't seem to be any inconsistency in how that is being used. If it refers to using reports as evidence of a viewpoint, again there no inconsistency or time-change problem with that as described.

[wapet1]

I chose answer choice C, because the fierce loyalty shown to him by the guards might be the cause of Pharaoh’s tyranny? This was my initial inference after I read the stiml. and thus I chose C. Am I correct?

[Claire Horan]

Hi Wapet1,

Good job finding the right answer, but I'm not sure why you are assuming that Akhenaten was a tyrant. You should be careful not to apply background knowledge outside the confines of the question. You should identify the parts of the argument and then prephrase the flaw.

Identify the conclusion: Akhenaten was well loved and highly respected by his subjects.
Premise: His palace guards were fiercely loyal.

Notice the difference between the premise and the conclusion. The premise discusses how the palace guards feel, and the argument inappropriately assumes that the subjects (a much larger group than the guards) have the same feelings. This is your classic "unrepresentative sample" flaw. Answer choice C says the sample is "likely to be unrepresentative," and common sense explains why: Palace guards are likely chosen for their loyalty and trained to be loyal, moreso than the average subject.

[wapet1]

Hi Wapet1,

Good job finding the right answer, but I'm not sure why you are assuming that Akhenaten was a tyrant. You should be careful not to apply background knowledge outside the confines of the question. You should identify the parts of the argument and then prephrase the flaw.

Identify the conclusion: Akhenaten was well loved and highly respected by his subjects.
Premise: His palace guards were fiercely loyal.

Notice the difference between the premise and the conclusion. The premise discusses how the palace guards feel, and the argument inappropriately assumes that the subjects (a much larger group than the guards) have the same feelings. This is your classic "unrepresentative sample" flaw. Answer choice C says the sample is "likely to be unrepresentative," and common sense explains why. Palace guards are likely chosen for their loyalty and trained to be loyal, moreso than the average subject.

ah! thank you for the clearification.

[andriana.caban]

Can you explain why (B) is incorrect? In hindsight, I can see why (C) is correct but I'm still having trouble eliminating (B). Thanks!

[Jeremy Press]

Hi Andriana,

Great question! Since answer choice B refers to the evidence that the argument relies on, let's look at that evidence. The evidence of the subjects' love and respect for Akhenaten comes from "reports written during Akhenaten's reign" of the loyalty his guards showed him. That evidence is not "in principle ... impossible to challenge," which is why answer choice B is wrong. Why is that evidence not impossible to challenge? Many possible reasons: we might look at those reports and ask who wrote them and what their motives were. We could use those motives to "challenge" whether the reports provide an accurate account of the palace guards' loyalty. We could also look at the reports and try to determine if what they say is unambiguous. Maybe there's another interpretation we could give to the words of the reports, or maybe the reports document other attitudes of the guards. Thus, the type of evidence the argument relies on (written evidence in reports) is, by its nature, always possible to challenge.

I hope this helps!

Jeremy

[bella243]

Is this a Method Flaw question?

[Frank Peter]

Hi Bella,

Yes, this is an example of a flaw in the method of reasoning question. Note that question types can often be described in a variety of ways in the question stem.

[menkenj]

Hi, I fell for B but now see why it's wrong.

Is there an example of a past LSAT question where something like B would have been the right answer? I'm looking to understand this flaw type better, even though in this question it was the wrong answer.

thanks!

[Dave Killoran]

Hi, I fell for B but now see why it's wrong.

Is there an example of a past LSAT question where something like B would have been the right answer? I'm looking to understand this flaw type better, even though in this question it was the wrong answer.

thanks!

Not to this exact phrasing that I can recall. To set up such a scenario would require a lot of barriers, and be specific about evidence being destroyed or permanently unavailable, etc. I think that would be very hard for them to do that with the word limits imposed in LR!