#18 - Dobson: Some historians claim that the people who

[srcline@noctrl.edu]

Hello

I know this is a flaw question that is asking what the flaw is in Dodson's argument; Dodson: therefore, the people who built the ring were not knowledgeable about celestial events. B/C there are many stones in the ring so the change that one pair will point in a celestially significant direction is large.

I chose D; Is D incorrect b/c Dodson doesn't base his conclusion around the historians opinion, but the way the stones are laid out? A is correct because what he states about how the stones are set is his evidence? and from there he concludes that that evidence is false? Is my thought processes correct with this question

Thankyou
Sarah

[Adam Tyson]

Hey there Sarah, thanks for the question. I think you are right about what's wrong with D - Dobson did not make the mistake of treating an opinion as if it were a factual claim. Since Flaw questions fall into the Must Be True family, they are subject to the "Fact Test" and we have to reject any answers that bring up new information. The concept of "opinion" here is new info - it wasn't in the stimulus - and so it must be rejected.

So what did Dobson actually do wrong? Think about his argument - he points out that the placement of those stones COULD be just a coincidence. Suggesting that does weaken the claim made by the historians by introducing an element of doubt, saying that their evidence doesn't necessarily support their conclusion. Where he goes wrong is in determining not that the historians COULD be wrong, but that they ARE wrong. He merely weakened their argument, but acted as if he had destroyed it. A little overconfident! This happens occasionally on the LSAT, and if we were to try to fit this into one of our classic Flaw categories it would probably be as one of those evidence flaws that says something like "some evidence against a position is taken as proving that position is incorrect."

So, it's not about basing his argument on the placement of the stones - it's about making too strong a claim based on that evidence.

Hope that helped!

[queenbee]

Hi
I chose D as well because I thought it was Dibson' opinion that he was taking as fact.

I dont really understand why A is correct. The cited evidence is that the stones line up to sunrise at the spring equinox. How is that taken as the evidence is false?

Thank you
Neeli

[Luke Haqq]

Hi Neeli!

To understand why (A) is correct, it can be helpful to add specifics from the stimulus to the general terms used in that answer choice.

Answer choice (A) refers to "The failure of cited evidence [the placement/alignment of two stones are the cited evidence] to establish a statement [the statement is that builders were knowledgeable about celestial events] is taken as evidence that that statement [that they were knowledgeable about celestial events] is false."

Dobson argues that there were numerous stones, such that it is highly likely that two of them could be paired together in some "celestially significant direction." From this, Dobson concludes that the builders must not have been knowledgeable about celestial events. However, just because it is possible that multiple stones might be paired in significant directions doesn't prove that the builders were not knowledgeable about celestial events. The two indicated stones might still be indications that they did have such knowledge. And even if this were not the case, it's still possible that they were knowledgeable about celestial events in ways not reflected by the placement of these stones.

[saiffshaikhh@gmail.com]

I narrowed it down to A & B, would you please explain why B could not work.

[Amber Thomas]

Hi saiffshaikhh!

Let's break down our stimulus:

Premise 1: Some historians claim that the people who built rings of stone thousands of years ago in Britain were knowledgable about celestial events.
Premise 2: The grounds for this are that two of the stones determine a line pointing directly to the position of sunrise at the spring equinox.
Premise 3: However, there are many stones in the ring, so the odds that one point will pair up to a significant position is high.
Conclusion: Therefore, the people who built the rings are not knowledgable about celestial events.

Answer Choice B states: "Dobson’s conclusion logically contradicts some of the evidence presented in support of it."

The conclusion does not logically contradict its points. Dobson's argument states that even though the stone ring points to an important celestial event, the odds of the stone rings pointing to some important celestial event are fairly high. Therefore, the people who made them were not knowledgable about celestial events. This evidence is not contradictory to the conclusion he makes.

Answer Choice A states: "The failure of cited evidence to establish a statement is taken as evidence that that statement is false."

Dobson states that because it is likely that the stones would, simply by chance, point to an important celestial event, that there is no way that it could be intentional when they do (i.e. like with the sunrise of the spring equinox). This is not a valid argument, as he does not actually disprove that the people who built the stones were knowledgable about celestial events. Just because the stones pointing to an important celestial event doesn't prove that the people who built them were knowledgable about celestial events doesn't prove that they were not knowledgable about celestial events.

I hope this helps!