#1 - In his new book on his complex scientific research, R

[Dave Killoran]

Complete Question Explanation

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

The argument in the stimulus contains both valid and invalid elements. Assuming all statements to be true, the first two sentences of the argument appear to be reasonable. It would be troubling if the author of the book simply assumed findings were determined by their funding sources, although it must be noted that R's beliefs could turn out to be correct. The statements in the third sentence about R's attitude are not relevant to the discussion of R's book, but the author of the book review acts as if the statements are an important element that affirm the conclusion of the argument.

The question stem asks you to identify, in abstract terms, the reasoning error committed by the author. The correct answer choice must describe a mistake made by the author in the stimulus. If an answer choice describes an occurrence that is not in the stimulus, that answer choice is incorrect.

Answer Choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. The author of the book review attacks the character of the writer in calling him "arrogant, overly ambitious, and sometimes plain nasty," and then uses those assertions to conclude that "it becomes clear that R's book does not merit attention from serious professionals." This is a flaw since statements about someone's character say nothing about their argument. In logic this is known as an ad hominem or source argument, and it is a flawed form of reasoning. Since each part of answer choice (A) can be identified as occurring in the stimulus, answer choice (A) is correct. Our research indicates that over 80% of test takers typically answer this question correctly.

Answer Choice (B): Incorrect. This answer better describes an error made by the author of the book, not the author of the book review.

Answer Choice (C): Incorrect. No discussion of a theory has occurred, so no biased account could have been given.

Answer Choice (D): Incorrect. There is only one assertion made about the book--that the author imputes bad faith to other authors (CHECK THIS)--and this could be easily verified by others.

Answer Choice (El: Incorrect. The answer choice suggests that the author of the book review does not understand the difference between being true and being interesting. This distinction has no application to this argument. Here is an example of the reasoning described in this answer choice:

• Assume for a moment that you have black hair. Someone comes up to you and says, "You have black hair." The statement is true, but since it is obvious, it is not sufficiently interesting to merit attention.

Since in this instance what the author has said is of interest and in part relevant to a discussion of the book, answer choice (E) cannot be correct.

[donger]

I got the answer right for this one but it took me a while to accept A as the correct answer. Knowing the common errors (i.e. source argument in this case) made it easy to identify A but the latter part of A threw me off a little when it says “as evidence that this person is not competent on matters on of scientific substance” whereas the conclusion of the argument simply states that the book does not merit attention from serious professionals, which I thought does not necessarily mean the author is incompetent on matters of science. The conclusion could be attacking the source to say that the work does not deserve respect because of the author’s character.

[Steve Stein]

hi donger,

Interesting question and I can see your point--the language in this choice seems pretty broad.

But while the recent book is a primary focus of the passage, a large part of the attack is of a more general nature: "R has shown himself to be arrogant, overly ambitious, and just plain nasty." (In LSAT world this is very strong language!).

The author concludes that the recent book merits no attention from serious professionals. "Not competent on matters of scientific substance," in the context of the right answer choice, would appear to mean that R is not a reliable source. This is supported by the passage, because the author based a critique of the book in part on a general problem with R's character--so it is clear that the author's critique is not limited to this book.

More importantly, it's great that when you saw some language that didn't perfectly fit your prephrase, you still didn't rule this choice out. I agree that this choice has some tricky phrasing, and they most assuredly do that on purpose. In many such cases, reserving judgment and eliminating the losers is the way to go.

I hope that's helpful!

~Steve

[donger]

Hey Steve,

I did note that the author seems to make a critique on the author's character and based off of that critique, criticized the book. But isn't the answer choice too specific? A critique on the character does not mean undeserving of attention from serious professionals. However, if it's simply the case that the LSAT is not perfect and then sometimes the only way to deal with a question is to eliminate 4 losers and choose the last standing contender, then I think I can live with that. You mentioned that doing so is sometimes the way to go but from all the questions I've seen on LR, eliminating the losers seems to be the only way to go. For all the other questions, at least reason upon review,I've been able to see that the answer choice is a solid answer.

Thanks,
Donger

[Steve Stein]

Thanks for your response. Again I believe that eliminating the losers in the way to go when you are unsure of an answer choice, or when an answer choice seems to fit your prephrase, but not quite perfectly, as in this case.

Some answer choices can be impossible to prephrase perfectly, but I can't agree that this is some sort of mistake on LSAC's part.

Again, the argument (in part) breaks down as follows:

Premise: R is arrogant, ambitious, and nasty.
Conclusion: R's book merits no attention from anyone serious.

The author thinks that this premise supports the conclusion, and, again, this is extremely broad: basically, the author is saying

"I know enough about R's character to make a judgement that what R produces cannot be taken seriously.

Pretty broad! The author's claim could reasonably be characterized as:

R's arrogance, ambitiousness, and nastiness clarify the fact that he can't be taken seriously.

Note that the answer doesn't say this attack proves R's incompetence--just that it is used to provide evidence of R's incompetence.

In other words, his character points to an inability to create a work that should be taken seriously.

The claim must be that R is incapable of making a serious work, if the author can then dismiss this last book based on the attack.

As for your point about eliminating losers' being the only way to go, I would recommend that you should probably start to prephrase more. In many cases you can predict the answer with a reasonable degree of precision; in those cases, you should quickly scan the answer choices looking for the words, phrases, that are likely to be in the right answer choice. In such cases, I would not recommend assessing the answer choices, one by one, in search of four losers. One great thing about practice is that you can develop confidence when you see the right answer, without needing additional confirmation on every occasion.


I hope that's helpful. On another note, how have you been preparing for the LSAT? books? courses? let me know--thanks!

~Steve

[donger]

Ah, the part about the "evidence" you mentioned clears things up more. I didn’t understand this part, though: "The claim must be that R is incapable of making a serious work, if the author can then dismiss this last book based on the attack."

I indeed do prephrase a lot and find an answer choice that matches with my prephrase but I also seem to get into the habit of applying two of the primary objectives of the bible, 1. to read all the answer choices 2. to separate them into contenders and losers. My basic thought process when it comes to prephrase is the following: skip the unattractive answers choices that turn me off after reading just a few words and choose the one that matches the pieces of my prephrase. However, out of a sense of responsibility to follow the primary objectives and avoid carelessness, I sometimes, read the four incorrect answer choices again (because I have only really glanced at them) even though I am almost certain I have the right answer. Although I feel this took time, it made me feel more secure.

Technically, I started preparing for the LSAT last year. I read the powerscore logic reasoning bible in my freshmen summer vacation. For this summer, I bought the logic games bible, workbooks for LR and LG, and 23 preptests total. So far and since June, I have read the logic games bible, re-read the logic reasoning bible, completed the workbooks, and completed 10 preptests. Nikki then gave me some advice after I seemed to reach a score block (my peak seeming to be 163) on how to now proceed with my studies. As he advised, I broke down 9 preptests' logic reasoning sections into the 13 question types. I tackled each question type in the order I listed them in. Before I approached the question type, I reviewed the relevant chapters in the bible. For every question I answered, I prephrased in my head before moving on to the answer choices among the other habits I tried to build (underlining conclusion, looking at the stimulus with a critical eye, recalling Defenders and Supporters, etc.). After I finished answering the question, I wrote down my thought process next to my answer on a notebook. For example,
“13. D – matched prephrase.
14. C – took me a while and eliminated C many times before I chose it.”

And then I wrote some tips along the way on my notebook if I gained some new important insight. Now, I’ve completed this workout Nikki suggested and am now going to take a preptest tomorrow to see if I have improved. If I don’t see myself improve satisfactorily, then I plan to take the Advanced Logic Reasoning Course, as Nikki also recommended. I also plan to take the Advanced Logic Games Course. I haven’t taken any courses yet.

Thank you for asking about how I prepare. I truly appreciate your considerateness.

[Anastasya1]

The author of the book review pretty much says that the whole book doesn’t merit attention from serious professionals due ONE troubling aspect that he goes on to explain. Not only is he disregarding the book based on attack of character, he’s using only one aspect of the whole book to disregard the book completely. A book that he describes to be a complex scientific research. Even if it were true that the funding aspect of the book doesn’t merit attention from serious professionals, it doesn’t mean that the whole book doesn’t merit it.

[Brook Miscoski]

Donger,

Thank you for taking the time to talk about your preparation methods. It sounds like you have a good plan, and you can also see whether you can avoid re-reading answer choices if that makes you more efficient.

The easiest way to pick the correct answer is to realize that the stimulus concentrates on words like "nasty," "arrogant," and "ambitious." This is plainly a character attack, which is a strong reason to pick (A) when no other answer choices address that flaw type.

As to what Steve is saying in that sentence:

"The claim must be that R is incapable of making a serious work, if the author can then dismiss this last book based on the attack."

Steve is saying that the author believes that R's bad behavior shows that he can't do good work.