Q11 - Professor Smith published a paper

[mkhan189]

I see the flaw (attacking that source - the other scientists - rather than the argument) but I don't understand why C is the answer -- basically I don't understand why the author has to show "why the other scientists could not have been presenting evidence.."?

[ohthatpatrick]

I see how this could feel like an "Attacking the Person, not the argument" type situation, although that's not actually the flaw I see.

Attacking the Person, as a flaw, generally only involves 1 person, who argued something, and the argument concludes that the argument was wrong for some personal reason.

f.e.
Mr. X argues that global warming is happening because the polar ice caps are melting. He must be wrong, though, since
... he's been known to lie in the past
... he gets easily confused by science
... he doesn't bother recycling or taking any other climate control measures
... he owns a solar panel company that would stand to make more money if global warming were perceived as a real threat

Q11's argument is more Mr. X vs. Mr. Y. The author clearly believes one of them is right and the other one is wrong (although offers no reason why we should believe Professor Smith vs. the well-known scientists).

And the author isn't concluding that Mr. ___ is wrong (which is what you'd get in an Attacking the Person argument). The author is concluding a possible explanation of an event ... he's speculating WHY the well-known scientists are writing their papers.

Naturally, when authors pose potential explanations, LSAT wants us to consider alternative explanations.

Here are the facts:
- Professor Smith published something that goes against conventional wisdom
- well-known scientists published papers defending conventional wisdom

The author explains the scientists' actions by assuming Smith was correct and assuming the other scientists were jealous/vindictive.

Given that this is the conclusion, we need to argue that "the other scientists were not being jealous/vindictive in writing their papers against Smith's findings."

How else could we explain their actions?

Maybe Smith is just wrong, and the other scientists want to demonstrate that he is incorrect. Nothing jealous/vindictive about that ... just normal ol' science.

So the real flaw here is just that the author confidently leaped to one possible interpretation of the evidence, while other interpretations (and more conservative, moderate ones at that) are possible.

Even though it's helpful to know the names/structures of famous flaws, it can sometimes get us into too rigid of an expectation about how the correct answer will sound.

Generally, the most flexible way to prime your brain for the answers is simply to figure out, "how can I agree with the evidence but disagree with the conclusion?"

=== other answers ===
(A) this wouldn't weaken the argument ... if Smith has much to gain, that may even strengthen the author's speculation that the other scientists are behaving jealously and vindictively.

(B) whether Smith knew or didn't know wouldn't impact the argument core of (well-known scientists defending existing scientific theory --> they feel threatened and are conspiring to discredit), so this wouldn't weaken either.

(D) Are you serious?

(E) The ripple effects on the public have nothing to do with the argument core.

Hope this helps.

[pdy507]

I picked C through POE although before moving on to answer choices, I was pretty certain what the flaw of the argument was. But I am not fully sure why C is the correct answer. How is not showing why the other scientists could not have been presenting evidence to establish the truth of the matter the flaw? Isn't the flaw that the author makes a leap to a single conclusion when there are other possibilities?

Thanks!