#10 - Cotrell is, at best, able to write magazine articl

[Dave Killoran]

Complete Question Explanation

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

As always, look closely at the structure of the argument—specifically the relationships between the premises and conclusion. This breakdown presents the pieces in the order given in the argument:

• Conclusion: Cotrell is, at best, able to write magazine articles of average quality.
  
  Subconclusion/ Premise: The most compelling pieces of evidence for this are those few of the numerous articles submitted by Cotrell that are superior.
  
  Premise: Cotrell, who is incapable of writing an article that is better than average, must obviously have plagiarized superior ones.

Examine the language in the conclusion (“Cotrell is, at best, able to write magazine articles of average quality”) and the premise (“Cotrell, who is incapable of writing an article that is better than average”). The two are identical in meaning, and thus we have an argument with circular reasoning. Do not be distracted by the plagiarism argument in the middle of the text—that is a tool used to physically separate the conclusion and premise, making it harder to recognize that the two are identical.

Answer choice (A): The argument does not ignore the potential counterevidence to the conclusion. The potential counterevidence is the few articles submitted by Cotrell that are superior, and the author dismisses them by claiming they are plagiarized. Although the reasoning used to dismiss the good articles is flawed, it is an attempt to address the evidence, and thus the argument cannot be said to “simply ignore the existence of potential counterevidence.”

Answer choice (B): This answer choice describes an Overgeneralization. The answer is wrong because the argument generalizes by dismissing the atypical occurrences (the superior articles), as opposed to generalizing from them.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice, and one of several different ways to describe Circular Reasoning. More often than not, when you see Circular Reasoning it will be an incorrect answer choice, but you cannot be complacent and simply assume it will be wrong every time you see it. This problem proves that it does appear as the correct answer on occasion.

Answer choice (D): This answer describes an Appeal to Authority. The answer fails the Fact Test because there is no reference to the judgment of experts.

Answer choice (E): This answer is similar to answer choice (B). The answer starts out reasonably well— “it infers limits on ability.” The argument does attempt this (depending on your definition of “infer”). But, does the argument make this inference based on a “few isolated lapses in performance?” No, the argument dismisses the few superior performances. In this sense the answer is Half Right, Half Wrong. Therefore, it is incorrect.

[SherryZ]

Dec 2001 LSAT, Sect 1, LR, Q10:

My understanding to this question is:

Few of articles Cotrell submitted are superior Cotrell only can write average quality articles those superior ones he submitted were plagiarized.

I chose B but the answer choice is C. Could you point out the error I made above and explain B and C?

Thank you so much!

---Sherry

[BethRibet]

Hi Sherry,

Thanks for your question.

This question requires correct identification of the flaw in the stimulus, which in this case, is circular reasoning. In other words, circular reasoning occurs when your "evidence" for a particular conclusion is actually just your assumption that the conclusion is true -- there are no real facts provided to support the conclusion.

The author assumes Cotrell's writing is never better than average, and then bends the facts (that Cotrell has submitted writing that is superior) so that they can still support that assumption.

For answer choice C, presupposes is another way to say assumes, and "what it seeks to establish" is the conclusion. That is C essentially means -- the author assumes the conclusion is true.

Answer choice B is actually not supported by the stimulus, there's no indication of a generalization made based on an atypical example. For instance, if I said, "It snowed in the desert last Tuesday. Therefore there's plenty of snow in the desert." -- I would be taking one unusual instance and generalizing it.

Good luck!

[SherryZ]

Hi Beth,

Thank you so much for your help! It means a lot to me!

Thank you again!

Sincerely,
Sherry

[kupwarriors9]

Why is the premise "Cotrell...incapable of writing...must obviously plagiarized" the premise whereas "Cotrell...at best..able..average quality" the conclusion? When I mentally put premise/conclusion indicators in (CH2), "Cotrell...at best..able..average quality" made more sense as the premise and "Cotrell...incapable of writing...must obviously plagiarized" made more sense as the conclusion. Can you please tell me why I'm incorrect. Also isn't 'must' a conclusion indicator?

Thanks,
KW9

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi kupwarriors,

We identify the conclusion here as "Cotrell is, at best..." because it's the statement that the rest of the stimulus supports. The statement is immediately followed by "the most compelling pieces of evidence..." meaning that what follows is providing evidence for the conclusion preceding it.

It's good that you noticed the word "must." It's an important word, but not a conclusion indicator. It does give an indication of likelihood (in this case, certainty), but it doesn't indicate either a conclusion or a premise itself.

Circular arguments can be especially tricky to find the conclusion, because essentially the conclusion and the premise(s) are the same. You want to look for clues in the stimulus, like conclusion indicators, premise indicators, or other phrases to clue you in to what is the conclusion, and what is being provided as support.

Hope that helps!

[ashpine17]

I am confused about the difference between circular reasoning and citing examples to support your case if I were trying to show that C was bad at writing essays, wouldn't it be proper reasoning to cite all the bad essays he wrote in the past? how is that circular reasoning?

[Jeremy Press]

Hi ashpine,

What you're describing would be proper reasoning, but that's not what the author is doing here. Here the author cites the superior essays that Cotrell has submitted as evidence that Cotrell is a bad writer. How could a superior essay prove someone is a bad writer? It really can't, so the author accuses Cotrell of plagiarizing those superior essays. But the author doesn't provide us any evidence that these superior articles were actually plagiarized. Instead, to ground the accusation of plagiarism, the author just repeats their conclusion ("Cotrell, who is incapable of writing an article that is better than average . . ."). So the entire edifice of the author's argument depends fully on a restatement of the conclusion (as a way to back up the accusation of plagiarism that is inappropriately used to dismiss Cotrell's superior articles). That's circular reasoning!

[pandapaws]

I am confused as to how B is incorrect. I thought the argument generalized from the few numerous articles that Cotrell submitted to determine that Cotrell is incable of writing an article that is better than average. I do not understand the difference between generalizing by dismissing the atypical occurrences (the superior articles) and generalizing from them.

[Adam Tyson]

To generalize from those examples, pandapaws, the author would have to say that Cotrell is in fact a superior writer, because the examples are superior. Overgeneralization occurs when you have small number of examples of a thing and then conclude that everything else is just like those examples. For example:

My brother was in the Navy. My son is in the Navy. My uncle used to be in the Navy. So all of my relatives are or were in the Navy.

or

The first chapter of this book was really exciting, and so was the final chapter. So every chapter must have been exciting.

This author did something sort of opposite of that. They looked at a few isolated examples and then dismissed them as not being representative of the rest. Instead of saying the rest of the articles must also be like the examples, they conclude that the rest are not like the examples.