#9 - Fraenger's assertion that the artist Hieronymus Bosch

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Method of Reasoning—AP. The correct answer choice is (D)

This stimulus begins with the conclusion. The statement is rather lengthy, and is designed to be a bit confusing, so make sure to reduce the author's statements into your own words. Restated for brevity, the conclusion is that Fraenger's claim Bosch was a member of the Brethren of the Free Spirit is unlikely to be right. The author finds it unlikely because there is no evidence to support that view and there is evidence to the contrary, i.e., that he was a member of a mainstream church.

Note that the argument feels flawed, in that some evidence against Fraenger's assertion is taken to mean that the assertion is "unlikely to be correct." This is less emphatic than the classic flaw where "some evidence against a position is taken to mean that position is false," but it is in that same vein. However, instead of a Flaw question, we are instead presented with a Method of Reasoning—Argument Part question. Specifically, we are tasked with identifying the role played in the stimulus by the final statement that “there is no evidence that Bosch was a member of the Brethren.” Your prephrase should reflect that this statement is a premise offered in support of the conclusion that it is unlikely that Bosch was a member of that group.

Answer choice (A): While this answer choice correctly identifies the statement as a premise (and thus appears initially attractive), the answer choice is incorrect because it then overstates the strength of the argument’s conclusion. The given premise doesn't "guarantee the falsity" of the assertion, and in any LR argument it would be virtually impossible to "guarantee the falsity" of any claim since that's difficult to do and doubly so in such limited space.

Answer choice (B): This answer choice is incorrect because that final claim isn't used to support the idea that Bosch was a member of a mainstream church, but rather that he wasn't a member of the Brethren of the Free Spirit. That distinction, which can initially be hard to see, is critical to eliminating this answer choice!

Answer choice (C): The stimulus author did not make any statements attacking Fraenger’s credibility. If you interpreted the counterevidence presented as attacking credibility in an indirect sense, that's not how argumentation on this test works. Simply presenting counterevidence keeps things in the debate arena (which is considered reasonable). To question credibility would be to attack someone's standing to make the argument or have their evidence considered in the first place, such as "Fraenger was known to be Bosch's personal enemy, and had spread misinformation about him in the past, so many of his statements need to be first examined for factual truth," or some similar type of attack.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. In stating that there was no evidence showing Bosch was a member of the Brethren, the author does cast doubt on Fraenger’s hypothesis, and so the first part of this answer passes the Fact Test. The second part also passes because by saying there was no evidence, the question of sufficiency of evidence is addressed (namely that if you have no evidence, then you have insufficient evidence).

Answer choice (E): The claim in question isn't directed at that portion of the discussion, and thus this answer choice is incorrect. It was Fraenger's hypothesis that offered a path to understanding Bosch's subject matter, but this final claim instead addresses whether Bosch was a member of the Brethren.

[mokkyukkyu]

Hi,

I was not sure between C and D.
Is C wrong because of the word "credibility" too strong?
But the evidence Fraenger gave do have some problems so I think credibility is Ok.
I eliminated D because I was not sure about the word "questioning"...it's not questioning, but apparently it says there is problem (contradicting evidence exist) I thought "questioning" is kind of weak...
Why is C wrong and D correct?

[Adam Tyson]

Good questions!

C is incorrect here not because "credibility" is too strong, but because Fraenger's credibility simply isn't at issue here. The problem is not whether we find Fraenger to be a believable person, but whether he has enough evidence to back up his claim. The author argues that there is not enough evidence, and concludes that Fraenger's conclusion is therefore unlikely.

Questioning may sound slightly unusual in this context, but it is what he is doing here. He doesn't conclude that Fraenger is wrong, but only that he is probably wrong. Fraenger apparently has some evidence, in the form of Bosch's subject matter, but the author here is suggesting that evidence is not enough, absent other direct evidence. If you state that someone doesn't have enough evidence, then that is questioning the sufficiency of the evidence (rather than claiming outright that it is insufficient). Note how "enough" and "sufficient" are actually synonymous in conditional reasoning, so if you say you don't have enough evidence, it's the same as saying you have insufficient evidence.

Thanks!

[T.B.Justin]

The author says, that Fraenger’s hypothesis explains much of Bosch’s unusual subject matter, which I think refers to his claim of belonging to a non-mainstream religious group.

The author believes that’s unlikely to be true.

The stimulus goes on to say there is some evidence that supports Bosch belonging to a mainstream religious group, yet no evidence to support Bosch belonging to the Brethren.

In regards to answer choice B:

Is making a claim about something the same as a statement of a fact that there is some evidence to support a position?

To answer choice D:

I think that the author’s choice of language in the stimulus, “explains much” of Bosch’s unusual subject matter implies not sufficiently, and the statement of no evidence, calls into question, Fraenger’s hypothesis that offers explanation of Bosch’s unusual subject matter.

[Robert Carroll]

TB,

Answer choice (B) is incorrect because the author is not presenting the final statement as evidence for the statement right before it. These facts are presented as separate pieces of evidence, neither apparently supporting the other. A claim about something isn't the same as a statement of fact that there is some evidence unless there is wording that indicates that's the purpose.

The author did present some evidence in favor of Fraenger, and then ultimately brings up so much counterevidence that the author thinks Fraenger is unlikely to be correct. So, if there is some evidence in favor of Fraenger, but the author still thinks he/she is unlikely to be correct. So the author thinks the evidence for F is outweighed by that against F - thus, the evidence for F is not sufficient to prove him/her right.

Robert Carroll

[T.B.Justin]

Hey Robert,

That helps solidify the idea of when the test makers use, what I think is, more or less, value based judgement weighing the available evidence to determine what is more likely, in this case, they think it is more likely that F's claim is unlikely to be correct. On a separate note, I think we both agree the method of reasoning used by the author in the statement, "no evidence that Bosch was a member of the Brethren," shows that the evidence for F's claim is insufficient.

I appreciate your time!

[mab9178]

Hi

I was time-trapped in the definitional distinction between the terms, "hypothesis" and "assertion."

The first sentence of the stimulus, which is the conclusion of the argument, states:
"Fraenger's assertion that the artist Hieronymus Bosch belonged to the Brethren of the Free Spirit, a nonmainstream religious group, is unlikely to be correct."

Answer-choice D states: "It is intended to cast doubt on Fraenger's hypothesis by questioning the sufficiency of Fraenger's evidence."

An "assertion" is not the same as a "hypothesis." The latter term is an inquisitive statement that is subject to the steps of the scientific method in terms of testing and relevant evidence, and the former is a strong belief that may very well fly in the face of truth and common sense!

Excluding the sentence "Fraenger's hypothesis explains much of Bosch's unusual subject matter," the rest of the argument is designed to support the notion that F's assertion is likely to be incorrect.

What through me off with answer-choice D is the word "hypothesis."

Should I not have been trapped in the definitional distinction between the two terms, "hypothesis" and "assertion"?

I can think of two responses:

The first, paraphrasing an old post by Adam Tyson to another student for another question, the LSAT business is the business of selecting the best answer-choice. However, between a "hypothesis" and an "assertion" there is a big distinction.

The second, the assertion is part of the hypothesis, and therefore casting doubt on part of the hypothesis, i.e. the assertion-part of it, undermines the whole hypothesis. But we do not know whether the assertion plays an integral part in the cohesion of the argument, our whether it is a side-show.

Moreover, concerning the notion that if part of the hypothesis, the assertion, is false, then the whole hypothesis is undermined, structurally speaking the support of an argument is always geared towards supporting the conclusion, which is why answer-choice B is wrong! Clearly, there is an implication that per answer-choice B, "Bosch was a member of a mainstream church," but since this implication would be a sub-conclusion, in turn, geared towards supporting the assertion in the first sentence, not the hypothesis in a concession by the author, then structure supersedes an extrapolation from part to whole, hence the futility of the second response!

I suppose that either I am wrong, and a hypothesis and an assertion are synonymous, or they are definitionally distinct but that distinction is not as big of a problem as the problems that the A, C and E exhibit!

In so far as B its concerned I see the structural argument, made above, to eliminate it. However, I do not know what criteria quantifies it a bigger problem than different words with different defintions!

I appreciate any feedback please!

Thank you

[Adam Tyson]

I think there is a third, simpler analysis that can be applied here, mab9178: the author is using the terms "hypothesis" and "assertion" interchangeably, even though they are not, strictly speaking, identical in meaning. Authors of LSAT arguments make a lot of mistakes, so we should not assume that they are always using their words with great precision!

Ultimately, I would still fall back on the distinction being a smaller problem than the problems in the other answers, and D is far and away the best of the bunch. It is, after all, a distinction that many people would fail to take any note of, and the LSAT is not a test of our vocabulary or of semantics, but of our reasoning.