Q14 - Council member: I recommend that

[megm7267]

How is (B) the right answer for this problem?

It doesn't seem like the council member is simply "accepting" a claim. He is "recommending" one.

I chose (A) because it looks like he is using his opponents' lack of evidence as basis for his plan being correct.

Can anyone provide some clarity on this?

[tuh119]

Argument:
Because some council members have not provided evidence on their assertion that the courthouse is a better place compared to abandoned shoe factory, the latter would be a better shelter site.

(A)-Watch what exactly the answer choice is saying!
Other council members do not have evidence that is AGAINST the view (of shoe factory being better shelter), rather they have not provided evidence to SUPPORT THEIR OWN VIEW.
If the answer choice is stated like the following, then it would be correct:
Asserting that a lack of evidence (not necessary lack of, but have not provided when the statement are made) to support a view is proof that THE OPPOSING VIEW is correct.

(B)-CORRECT
Accepting a claim simply because advocates of an opposing claim have not adequately defended their view.
If you read the explanation in answer choice (A), you should be able to understand why (B) is correct.

Hope I am right about this.

[tuh119]

Can someone please tell me if my explanation is correct or not? I don't feel so confident about this one (my post above). Thanks!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Nice work tuh119!

That's exactly right. And this one is tricky because for those of us who have worked on the LSAT for a long time now, we're so trained to think of the following two abstract reasoning errors.

1. takes the failure to prove a claim as proof that the claim is false
2. take the failure to disprove a claim as proof that the claim is true

Since those two abstract reasoning errors are so common, when I just read the stimulus here on Q14 I immediately thought of the 2nd example. But you're exactly right, this is a twist one these common flaws.

When expressing the flaw in the argument, you want to make sure you express the gap between the evidence provided and the conclusion reached. In this case the evidence for why the abandoned factory is the preferred option, isn't a lack of evidence against using the factory, but rather the lack of evidence in support of the courthouse - slightly different and a good example where reading all of the answer choices can be really helpful.

I'd be there were at least some folks who looked at answer choice (A), liked it, picked it, and moved on. Had they continued reading the other answer choices, they would have at least had a chance to be tempted by answer choice (B).

Let's look at the incorrect answers:

(A) is not true. There is no lack of evidence against a claim, but rather a lack of evidence in support of another option.
(C) represents a common flaw (ad hominem) but not one committed in this argument. There is no personal attack on the proponents of the courthouse, nor an attack on their character, nor an attack on their motivation for suggesting the courthouse.
(D) is a terrible answer choice here. There is no fear-mongering. There's simply a debate about which is the better option, but no attempt to scare people into supporting one or the other of the two options.
(E) is not true. There is no attack on an argument, only the attempt to support one idea based on the absence of support for another idea.

Again nice work tuh119!

[timmydoeslsat]

This was tough for me and I came down to A and B, but picked A.

I felt that this is what A was saying.

(A): The council members had a lack of evidence that their site would be better than his.

Therefore, his was better than their site.

He does assert that a lack of evidence showing that their site is better than his means this his better. It just seems to me, that a lack of evidence of their view....is necessarily a lack of evidence against his.

I do not see how you can separate the two.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Hey Timmy!

I totally see your point, answer choice (A) was really tempting for me, especially since the way it is phrased matches more closely with the way this flaw has been expressed in so many other instances on previous PrepTests. Answer choice (B) however, is a bit unfamiliar, making it tough to digest. But if you fully do, it sounds a lot like answer choice (A).

The issue is that you need to eliminate one of the two answer choices, so you have to find ways in which the answer choices deviate, and then test them to confirm or deny the distinction. The most obvious distinction is the directness of the two answer choices.

Let's match the answer choice most directly with the relationship between the evidence and the conclusion. The evidence is that the supporters of the courthouse have not provided evidence that the it is the better option, and so the argument concludes that we should accept the shoe factory as the better option. The evidence does not say that there are no good reasons not to support the shoe factory, but rather that there are no good reasons to support the courthouse. That's a lack of evidence for an opposing claim, not lack of evidence against a claim - other potentially damaging evidence against the shoe factory might exist. It wasn't mentioned whether there are any strong reasons not to think the shoe factory is a better option.

These are opposing claims and while we can get to your thought process through implication. It would make senes to stay as literal as possible, since we need to find a reason to eliminate either answer choice (A) or (B). And asking directly how does the evidence function in the argument, answer choice (B) seems to be a better match.

I respect your analysis, so I'm curious to hear what you think...

[jcl2153]

Hey Timmy!

I totally see your point, answer choice (A) was really tempting for me, especially since the way it is phrased matches more closely with the way this flaw has been expressed in so many other instances on previous PrepTests. Answer choice (B) however, is a bit unfamiliar, making it tough to digest. But if you fully do, it sounds a lot like answer choice (A).

The issue is that you need to eliminate one of the two answer choices, so you have to find ways in which the answer choices deviate, and then test them to confirm or deny the distinction. The most obvious distinction is the directness of the two answer choices.

Let's match the answer choice most directly with the relationship between the evidence and the conclusion. The evidence is that the supporters of the courthouse have not provided evidence that the it is the better option, and so the argument concludes that we should accept the shoe factory as the better option. The evidence does not say that there are no good reasons not to support the shoe factory, but rather that there are no good reasons to support the courthouse. That's a lack of evidence for an opposing claim, not lack of evidence against a claim - other potentially damaging evidence against the shoe factory might exist. It wasn't mentioned whether there are any strong reasons not to think the shoe factory is a better option.

These are opposing claims and while we can get to your thought process through implication. It would make senes to stay as literal as possible, since we need to find a reason to eliminate either answer choice (A) or (B). And asking directly how does the evidence function in the argument, answer choice (B) seems to be a better match.

I respect your analysis, so I'm curious to hear what you think...

This may be a bit redundant, but I agree: the only "lack of evidence" mentioned in the stimulus is that which is attributed to the other council members (let's call these council members "group A" so as to not confuse them with the council member making the argument.) "[Group A] asserts that the courthouse would be a better shelter site, but [Group A] has provided no evidence of this." That is to say, Group A has provided no evidence for the view that the courthouse would be a better shelter site.

[timmydoeslsat]

If answer choice (A) is correct, and the council member's flaw is "asserting that a lack of evidence against a view is proof that the view is correct," then we would expect the council member to be making an argument for the view that the courthouse would be a better shelter site - when, in fact, Group A is making an argument for the view that the courthouse would be a better shelter site while the council member is countering that view in favor of the view that the shoe factory would be a better shelter site.

There is a lack of evidence against the view. There is a lack of evidence against the view that the factory is better than the courthouse.

Group A asserts that the courthouse is better than the factory.

The council member asserts that the factory is better than the courthouse simply because there is a lack of evidence against his view of the factory being better than the courthouse.

How can you explain that?

[jcl2153]

If answer choice (A) is correct, and the council member's flaw is "asserting that a lack of evidence against a view is proof that the view is correct," then we would expect the council member to be making an argument for the view that the courthouse would be a better shelter site - when, in fact, Group A is making an argument for the view that the courthouse would be a better shelter site while the council member is countering that view in favor of the view that the shoe factory would be a better shelter site.

There is a lack of evidence against the view. There is a lack of evidence against the view that the factory is better than the courthouse.

Group A asserts that the courthouse is better than the factory.

The council member asserts that the factory is better than the courthouse simply because there is a lack of evidence against his view of the factory being better than the courthouse.

How can you explain that?

I see what you mean now, and I should amend my above post, as the part you pointed out is definitely misleading. I still think, though, that there's not enough information in the stimulus for us to conclude that there is a lack of evidence against the council member's view. What we're told is that there is a lack of evidence for a view that opposes that of the council member, but can we safely conclude from that that there is a lack of evidence against the view of the council member? I mean, intuitively, of course, I agree, if you don't have evidence for the view that X is better than Y, then it seems intuitive that you wouldn't have evidence against the view that Y is better than X. But logically, I think it's tougher to prove. Group A might not have evidence for the view that X is better than Y, but doesn't that leave open the possibility that Group A might nevertheless have evidence that X is just as good as Y? If that were the case, then there would not be a lack of evidence against the view the Y is better than X, because evidence that Y is just as good as X is sufficient evidence against the view that Y is better than X.

Let me know if that seems amiss, though - I definitely don't want to put out the wrong idea in these final few days before the October LSAT.

[LSAT-Chang]

I am with Timmy 100% as I struggled for the past hour and 50 minutes trying to figure out what was wrong with answer choice (A) since there HAS to be something just NOT right about it that makes (B) a better answer. I think I've finally came up with an explanation.. PLEASE correct me if I am wrong!

Okay, so I think we all agree that (B) works, so I will just go ahead and try my best to explain in simple terms why (A) is incorrect.

(A) literally says "lack of evidence against a view..." -- but what is the VIEW here? The first sentence is super important! The VIEW in this answer choice is referring to the council member's view that the abandoned shoe factory be used as a municipal emergency shelther. Now read the next sentence of the "some council members" claim. They actually DO NOT GO AGAINST THE VIEW! Going AGAINST THAT VIEW in particular would be: "Some council members assert that the abandoned shoe factory NOT be used as a municipal emergency center, but they have provided no evidence of this. Thus, the shoe factory would be a good site." This would totally work within the framework of answer choice (A) since it's literally saying that the view is correct just because there is no evidence AGAINST it. However, read carefully. The council members are just saying that the courthouse would be a BETTER SHELTER SITE! I could totally say that something is BETTER than something else but NOT go AGAINST that something else!

For example:

I recommend that Susan wear her pink dress today to go to her friend's birthday party. James asserts that the blue dress would be better, but he has provided no evidence of this. Thus, the pink dress would be better.

For all we know, James could still LOVE the pink dress on Susan but just thinks the blue dress is a little bit better than the pink dress. So he's not necessarily going against the view that Susan SHOULD wear the pink dress, but rather suggesting that something would be BETTER (when BOTH could be amazing!) than something else. If he were to go AGAINST this view, he would have to assert and say: "NO. Susan should NOT wear her pink dress today go to her friend's birthday party!" THIS would totally be going AGAINST my view -- but suggesting that something else is better than mine is not really going against it. So in this case, (B) would be a perfect flaw for the above statement since I am accepting a claim (that the pink dress is better) simply because James hasn't adequately defended his view that the blue dress is better! For all we know, the blue dress COULD be the BETTER one, so I can't just say the pink dress is better because James didn't provide any evidence for it (maybe he just left me a quick voicemail in between his meetings and didn't have enough time to explain why the blue dress is better). I think we all understand why (B) is correct so I won't delve deeper.

Answer choice (A) would work perfectly if we had the whole stimulus to say:

I recommend that the abandoned shoe factory be used as a municipal emergency shelter. Some council members assert that the abandoned shoe factory should NOT be used as a municipal emergency shelter, but they have provided no evidence of this. Thus, the shoe factory would be a better shelther site.

I know I've probably repeated myself over and over again, but I was just too frustrated with this question and felt SUPER relieved when this idea finally clicked inside my head after 2 hours of sweating.

Please feel free to comment on anything I've said above ( I've never spent so much time analyzing a problem before)!

[jcl2153]

I am with Timmy 100% as I struggled for the past hour and 50 minutes trying to figure out what was wrong with answer choice (A) since there HAS to be something just NOT right about it that makes (B) a better answer. I think I've finally came up with an explanation.. PLEASE correct me if I am wrong!

Okay, so I think we all agree that (B) works, so I will just go ahead and try my best to explain in simple terms why (A) is incorrect.

(A) literally says "lack of evidence against a view..." -- but what is the VIEW here? The first sentence is super important! The VIEW in this answer choice is referring to the council member's view that the abandoned shoe factory be used as a municipal emergency shelther. Now read the next sentence of the "some council members" claim. They actually DO NOT GO AGAINST THE VIEW! Going AGAINST THAT VIEW in particular would be: "Some council members assert that the abandoned shoe factory NOT be used as a municipal emergency center, but they have provided no evidence of this. Thus, the shoe factory would be a good site." This would totally work within the framework of answer choice (A) since it's literally saying that the view is correct just because there is no evidence AGAINST it. However, read carefully. The council members are just saying that the courthouse would be a BETTER SHELTER SITE! I could totally say that something is BETTER than something else but NOT go AGAINST that something else!

For example:

I recommend that Susan wear her pink dress today to go to her friend's birthday party. James asserts that the blue dress would be better, but he has provided no evidence of this. Thus, the pink dress would be better.

For all we know, James could still LOVE the pink dress on Susan but just thinks the blue dress is a little bit better than the pink dress. So he's not necessarily going against the view that Susan SHOULD wear the pink dress, but rather suggesting that something would be BETTER (when BOTH could be amazing!) than something else. If he were to go AGAINST this view, he would have to assert and say: "NO. Susan should NOT wear her pink dress today go to her friend's birthday party!" THIS would totally be going AGAINST my view -- but suggesting that something else is better than mine is not really going against it. So in this case, (B) would be a perfect flaw for the above statement since I am accepting a claim (that the pink dress is better) simply because James hasn't adequately defended his view that the blue dress is better! For all we know, the blue dress COULD be the BETTER one, so I can't just say the pink dress is better because James didn't provide any evidence for it (maybe he just left me a quick voicemail in between his meetings and didn't have enough time to explain why the blue dress is better). I think we all understand why (B) is correct so I won't delve deeper.

Answer choice (A) would work perfectly if we had the whole stimulus to say:

I recommend that the abandoned shoe factory be used as a municipal emergency shelter. Some council members assert that the abandoned shoe factory should NOT be used as a municipal emergency shelter, but they have provided no evidence of this. Thus, the shoe factory would be a better shelther site.

I know I've probably repeated myself over and over again, but I was just too frustrated with this question and felt SUPER relieved when this idea finally clicked inside my head after 2 hours of sweating.

Please feel free to comment on anything I've said above ( I've never spent so much time analyzing a problem before)!

I may have to think about this some more, but I don't know if I fully agree. At first, when I was trying to pick apart answer choice (A), I tended down the same line of reasoning that you just mentioned, but after considering it for a bit, I realized something didn't quite figure. I think the problem is that, while the council member's initial statement is that "the abandoned shoe factory be used as a municipal emergency shelter," ultimately the council member's conclusion is that "the shoe factory would be a better shelter site." In that sense, the other council members' claim that "the courthouse would be a better shelter site" is indeed an opposing argument to the council member's conclusion that "the shoe factory would be a better shelter site." Thus, while the absolute (first sentence) versus relative (second and third sentences) transition is a trick the LSAT writers have inserted into this question, the flaw we're examining still lies in the second and third sentences. With regards to answer choice (A), at least, the "lack of evidence" is meant to refer to the lack of evidence in the other council members' assertion (second sentence in the stimulus), while the "view" is meant to refer to the council member's conclusion (third sentence in the stimulus) and not the council member's initial recommendation (first sentence in the stimulus). In which case, the problem with answer choice (A) is not that the other council members' assertion of the courthouse being better than the factory doesn't preclude them from still thinking that the factory could be used as the shelter, because that's not the "view" that this answer choice is referring to. Rather, the problem with answer choice (A) is that lack of evidence for the view that the courthouse is better than the factory does not allow us to infer that there is a lack of evidence against the view that the factory is better than the courthouse. It could be that the other council members do not have evidence for the view that the courthouse is better than the factory, but that they do have evidence for the view that the courthouse is just as good as the factory, in which case they'd have evidence against the view that the factory is better than the courthouse. In short, I saw the problem with answer choice (A) being primarily that the other council members' not having evidence for the view that the courthouse is better than the factory is still compatible with the other council members' having evidence against the view that the factory is better than the courthouse. As such, we cannot safely infer that there is, in fact, a lack of evidence against the view that the factory is better than the courthouse.

What do you guys think?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

They actually DO NOT GO AGAINST THE VIEW! Going AGAINST THAT VIEW in particular would be: "Some council members assert that the abandoned shoe factory NOT be used as a municipal emergency center

Hey So, nice work. Overall your explanation is correct but I'd be cautious on one point. I think the two views are contradictory. The council member's conclusion is that the shoe factory would be a better shelter site. The other idea advocated is that the courthouse would be a better site. Those two views are contradictory.

I think the reason why answer choice (A) is so tempting is that implicitly it's true. But that's only implicitly. There are two views, each of which would contradict the other. The argument concludes that one view is correct. It's evidence for this is that there is no support for the other view. Implicitly, lack of evidence for the dismissed view is lack of evidence against the advocated view.

But we need to describe what happened and not what's implied - that's why answer choice (A) doesn't describe a "technique used" in the council member's argument. So the moral of the story is that when debating between two answers, if one of them is more literal and the other more implicit - choose the former.

Great discussion Tim, So, and jcl2153! This has been a great time on the forum - good luck to you if you're taking the test tomorrow!

[vik]

I think LSAT always uses this fallacy in terms of 'evidence for a view', never as 'evidence against a view.'

One may present evidence 'for a view' or 'to weaken a view', i.e., positive evidence, but never 'against a view', i.e., negative evidence.

The other CMs may not even be aware of our CM's proposal!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I think LSAT always uses this fallacy in terms of 'evidence for a view', never as 'evidence against a view.'

Careful, those absolutisms can get you in trouble on the LSAT. The LSAT frequently exploits both of these fallacies:

1. failure to prove a claim is treated as proof of the denial of a claim.
2. failure to disprove a claim is treated as proof of the claim.

One may present evidence 'for a view' or 'to weaken a view', i.e., positive evidence, but never 'against a view', i.e., negative evidence.

Also, wouldn't weakening a view be the same as being against a view?

[Sbrown]

For me this came down to A) and B), and I ended up crossing out B) for the following reason:

Answer B) states that "...advocates of an opposing claim have not adequately defended their view". The word "defended" here bothered me. It seems to me that in order to judge the adequacy of a defense, that defense should need to be attacked in some way. However, there is no real evidence of any attack on this view in the Council member's statement.

The Council member states "Some council members assert that the courthouse would be a better shelter site, but they have provided no evidence of this". This seems like it is the other council members who are on the attack, since they are presenting another option as being better. So if anything, it seems like the council member is dismissing their offense, not their defense. Just because I haven't scored any goals doesn't mean my defense is bad.

Because of this, I figured that option B) was out-of-scope for the actual statements made, and went with A).

Could anyone shed some light on this?

[JohnZ880]

Credit to the LSAC for yet another terrible question that plays on the ambiguities of language and understanding rather than on the actual understanding of the inherent logical error of the stimulus.

[HughM388]

Credit to the LSAC for yet another terrible question that plays on the ambiguities of language and understanding rather than on the actual understanding of the inherent logical error of the stimulus.

I wouldn't say it has to do with an ambiguity of the language, but I agree with you that it's a pretty lame attempt at creating a distinction where, by necessity, there isn't one.

If you and I are arguing the merits of two competing items, A and B, and I don't present evidence that my item, A, is better than your item, B, then, according to the logic of this question, I've failed only to provide evidence for A—even though in a directly adversarial context a lack of argument or evidence for A is EXPLICITLY also a lack of argument or evidence against B. At the same time, evidence for B is evidence directly and explicitly against A.

If you and I are arguing, and I haven't argued for my position, then, by necessity, I also haven't argued against your position. Otherwise, what am I doing there? Just entertaining myself with solipsistic thought experiments. No—as soon as one enters into an adversarial, one-on-one argument, failing to argue your position is the same as failing to argue against the opposing position. These two elements are inextricably linked; without one or the other the argument itself collapses. That's why the attempt by this question to contrive an artificial distinction between those elements is fatuous and ultimately illogical.

[JeremyK460]

Breakdown:
Those who think the courthouse would be better as an emergency facility haven’t provided evidence in defense of their opinion.

The abandoned shoe factory is a better emergency facility.

Basic Breakdown:
They didn’t support their claim.

So, my claim is most/more supported.

Analysis:
There’s an argument from silence going on. Just because you haven’t shown that my prescription isn’t the better option doesn’t mean that my prescription is the better option.

Answer Choices:
(A) This is an appeal to ignorance, which doesn’t happen in the argument. This answer is saying: a lack of evidence against ‘X’ is proof that ‘X’ is correct. But, the argument doesn’t explicate a lack of evidence against ‘X’ (shoe-factory is a better shelter). Rather, a lack of evidence for team Courthouse is proof that team Factory is correct.

(B) See analysis. But here’s my analogy, for funsies…

(C) This is an ad-hominem.

(D) Appealing to emotion doesn’t happen here.

(E) This is possibly some different sort of relevance error.

Credit to the LSAC for yet another terrible question that plays on the ambiguities of language and understanding rather than on the actual understanding of the inherent logical error of the stimulus.

I wouldn't say it has to do with an ambiguity of the language, but I agree with you that it's a pretty lame attempt at creating a distinction where, by necessity, there isn't one.

If you and I are arguing the merits of two competing items, A and B, and I don't present evidence that my item, A, is better than your item, B, then, according to the logic of this question, I've failed only to provide evidence for A—even though in a directly adversarial context a lack of argument or evidence for A is EXPLICITLY also a lack of argument or evidence against B. At the same time, evidence for B is evidence directly and explicitly against A.

If you and I are arguing, and I haven't argued for my position, then, by necessity, I also haven't argued against your position. Otherwise, what am I doing there? Just entertaining myself with solipsistic thought experiments. No—as soon as one enters into an adversarial, one-on-one argument, failing to argue your position is the same as failing to argue against the opposing position. These two elements are inextricably linked; without one or the other the argument itself collapses. That's why the attempt by this question to contrive an artificial distinction between those elements is fatuous and ultimately illogical.

There were two things that stuck out to me…

One, I definitely agree with you! Although there is a distinction, I don’t think the LSAC is necessarily testing our knowledge of this distinction, specifically. This is a matter of description. The question-stem prompts me to think as declaratively as possible in regards to a description of how the argument falters. From a declarative standpoint, answer (A) is not correct (or is less right) than (B).

Two, I also agree that this isn’t a case of semantic ambiguity. I think I can make a case that the semantics of (A) connotes a deductive style of argumentation rather than the inductive qualities expressed in the argument, which (B) connotes (but I could be reading too inflexibly on this). I think (A)’s expressing ‘proving a conclusion correct’ connotes a deductive style of argumentation. Deduction is meant to prove a conclusion correct/true, while inductive arguments are meant to prove a conclusion more probable / plausible. The argument doesn’t seem to possess the explicit deductive qualities that I’ve seen other passages possess.

Argument From Silence VS Appeal to Ignorance:
There’s a difference between an appeal to ignorance and an argument from silence. Appealing to ignorance is ‘no opposition for X, so X must be true’. Argument from silence is ‘no argument for Y, so X (not-Y) must be true’. This is what the LSAT is testing for here in my opinion.

Argument From Silence: Example:
I think LeBron is a better GOAT candidate.
You think Jordan is a better GOAT candidate.
But, you haven’t shown me why Jordan is a better GOAT candidate.
So, LeBron must be the better GOAT candidate.

Appeal to Ignorance: Example:
I think LeBron is a better GOAT candidate.
You think Jordan is a better GOAT candidate.
But, you haven’t shown me why LeBron is not a better GOAT candidate.
So, LeBron must be the better GOAT candidate.