Q13 - Legislator: My colleague says we should reject this

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Flaw

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: We should vote to approve the act.
Evidence: My colleague said the act would deter investment, but she's voted to deter investment in the past, so this can't be her real reason. Since she hasn't given a real reason, the real reason must not be very persuasive.

Answer Anticipation:
Jeez … what a trainwreck. There are like three big problems, all of which could be an answer:

Unproven vs. Untrue (even if we establish that we have no good reason AGAINST voting for this act, the author has provided no good reason to vote FOR this act)

Attacking the Person (You may have committed a behavior in the past that you are now sincerely warning people against doing ... you can't disqualify someone's opinion by saying they haven't always behaved in accordance with that opinion)

Term Shift (near Circular) going from "if it hasn't been revealed, it must not be persuasive".

Correct Answer:
B

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) There's no personal character trait mentioned, so we can stop reading five words in.

(B) Yes! The reason Attacking the Person is a flaw is because we should address the IDEAS not the source of the ideas.

(C) The author doesn't need to assume that the colleague is in the minority. Even if the colleague is in the majority, the author could still make his crappy argument. Perhaps if this answer read "presumes that the majority opinion in the legislature is not that this act would deter investment", then I would be okay with it.

(D) The author is saying nothing about voters, so no assumptions need be made.

(E) The author doesn't directly acknowlege this specific reason for the colleague's opposition, but since the author thinks the colleague's STATED opposition is not her REAL reason, then the author would not be surprised nor damaged to learn about (E).

Takeaway/Pattern: Instead of taking the colleague's argument head on, (arguing that the act does NOT deter investment, or arguing that EVEN THOUGH it deters investment, its advantages outweigh that disadvantage), the author tried to disqualify that concern by pointing to the colleague's past voting record.

#officialexplanation

[JoyS894]

I could use a bit more of a clarification on B) and it's meaning. I knew that attacking the person, not the idea, was the flaw, but I don't see how B) reflects this. It states, "fails to address the grounds on which the colleague claims the act should be rejected." However, it seemed to be that the legislator does acknowledge the grounds in the beginning by stating, "My colleague says we should reject this act because it would deter investment." Any further help on this would be appreciated!

[NicoleK891]

I agree with the post above. The argument DOES address the grounds on which the colleague claims the act should be rejected. It explicitly states the claim, "my colleague says we should reject this act because it would deter investment." It also addresses her grounds for claiming that. It says that the reason is unknown because she has not revealed it. It may not go into it any further, but it at least ADDRESSES it, which is what the answer asks for. B is the only answer I immediately eliminated. It makes no sense to me why it would be correct.

[alejandrac29]

I missed this question and struggled to make sense of B for a while.

I am starting to see how the argument does fail to address the grounds on which the colleague claims the act should be rejected. The legislator says his colleague's claim is that we should reject this act because it would deter investment, and then goes on to question her intentions rather than her claim. IE he never says why detering investment isn't a bad thing or that she's incorrect about the fact that the act would deter investment. Instead, he jumps straight to say that she hasn't presented a reason for her claim she's saying and for that reason we should reject it.

I can make the most sense of this by thinking about it as an assumption that since her reasoning can't be proven, it must not be valid, and he is able to make that assumption by ignoring addressing the claim itself.

I agree that "grounds" is a bit abstract here

[ohthatpatrick]

Thanks for weighing in. I usually only see posts from green/blue-named posters, so I didn't realize there was lingering confusion about (B).

I think the confusion is stemming from the distinction between
identifying the reason the colleague cited
vs.
addressing (substantively responding) to the reason the colleague cited

If (B) said
"fails to identify the grounds on which the colleague ..."
then we would have to eliminate it because it would be saying something untrue.

But "fails to address" is meant to convey the meaning of,
"How come you never actually addressed / responded to her concern about deterring investment?
You just dismissed it, saying it can't be her real objection, since she has been willing to deter investment in the past.
First of all, people can change ... situations can be different ... sometimes deterring investment might be worth it, given what we're getting in return ... sometimes it might not be worth it.
Secondly, even if it's NOT her reason. It could be a reason to reject the act. If you're going to conclude that we should approve the act, we, your audience, would feel better about it if you assured us that the act does NOT deter investment, or assured us that if it does deter investment, that we're getting something out of it that's worth it."

Now that I'm done trying to defend LSAT's rationale, I agree with you guys that it's sheisty to say the author failed to address it (at all).

It would be fair to say THE WAY the author addressed it is inadequate, but it does sound off to say the author never referred to it again after that first sentence.

WE'RE SAYING: The author still used the concept of 'deter investment' within her counterargument, because she uses the colleague's past position on 'deter investment' to (poorly) attempt to convince us that 'deter investment' is not the colleague's real concern and thus, presumably, we don't need to even shoot down that concern since it was fake to begin with.

LSAT WOULD SAY: The colleague's concern is that THIS ACT would deter investment. NOTHING in the evidence mentions ANY facts about THIS ACT. Therefore, the author failed to address the colleague's specific concern.

[DPCTE4325]

Hey Patrick! Is there another reason why E is wrong? I crossed it out because while the author DID fail to consider this, it’s not the reason why the argument is flawed?

The author also failed to consider a bunch of other things but it doesn’t mean any of these answer choices would be the right one.

I want to make sure because I noticed that for difficult questions, the answer choices always include things that COULD be right and therefore trick you but it's not necessarily related to the core of the argument.

Thank you!

Question Type:
Flaw

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: We should vote to approve the act.
Evidence: My colleague said the act would deter investment, but she's voted to deter investment in the past, so this can't be her real reason. Since she hasn't given a real reason, the real reason must not be very persuasive.

Answer Anticipation:
Jeez … what a trainwreck. There are like three big problems, all of which could be an answer:

Unproven vs. Untrue (even if we establish that we have no good reason AGAINST voting for this act, the author has provided no good reason to vote FOR this act)

Attacking the Person (You may have committed a behavior in the past that you are now sincerely warning people against doing ... you can't disqualify someone's opinion by saying they haven't always behaved in accordance with that opinion)

Term Shift (near Circular) going from "if it hasn't been revealed, it must not be persuasive".

Correct Answer:
B

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) There's no personal character trait mentioned, so we can stop reading five words in.

(B) Yes! The reason Attacking the Person is a flaw is because we should address the IDEAS not the source of the ideas.

(C) The author doesn't need to assume that the colleague is in the minority. Even if the colleague is in the majority, the author could still make his crappy argument. Perhaps if this answer read "presumes that the majority opinion in the legislature is not that this act would deter investment", then I would be okay with it.

(D) The author is saying nothing about voters, so no assumptions need be made.

(E) The author doesn't directly acknowlege this specific reason for the colleague's opposition, but since the author thinks the colleague's STATED opposition is not her REAL reason, then the author would not be surprised nor damaged to learn about (E).

Takeaway/Pattern: Instead of taking the colleague's argument head on, (arguing that the act does NOT deter investment, or arguing that EVEN THOUGH it deters investment, its advantages outweigh that disadvantage), the author tried to disqualify that concern by pointing to the colleague's past voting record.

#officialexplanation

[ohthatpatrick]

"fails to consider X" can only be a flaw in the argument if X would be an objection TO the argument.

Is it an objection to this argument to say,
"Oh, author, the colleague's opposition to the act is a response to her constituents' wishes."

No, it wouldn't be. The author would agree to that and be like, "Told ya! I knew that she wasn't doing it because it's anti-investment. Her real reason was just pandering to constituents. No wonder she didn't reveal her real reason." etc.

That's what I meant by "the author would be neither surprised nor damaged" to learn that REAL reason the colleague opposed it was _____ .


I think you were recalling the several examples that exist in which a "fails to consider" answer WOULD weaken the conclusion, if true, but it's not the correct answer because a different answer better addresses the reasoning flaw that took place.

This one, however, doesn't weaken at all, so it never even starts out as a contender.

[JasonZ573]

"fails to consider X" can only be a flaw in the argument if X would be an objection TO the argument.

Is it an objection to this argument to say,
"Oh, author, the colleague's opposition to the act is a response to her constituents' wishes."

No, it wouldn't be. The author would agree to that and be like, "Told ya! I knew that she wasn't doing it because it's anti-investment. Her real reason was just pandering to constituents. No wonder she didn't reveal her real reason." etc.

That's what I meant by "the author would be neither surprised nor damaged" to learn that REAL reason the colleague opposed it was _____ .


I think you were recalling the several examples that exist in which a "fails to consider" answer WOULD weaken the conclusion, if true, but it's not the correct answer because a different answer better addresses the reasoning flaw that took place.

This one, however, doesn't weaken at all, so it never even starts out as a contender.

Hey Patrick, could you give some example that " ' fails to consider X' " is an objection to the argument?