Q16 - The view that every person

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Flaw (reasoning is flawed)

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: Social theorists who think people are completely self-interested apparently think that aspiring to democracy is futile.
Evidence: Democracy is only possible when you have government by consent, and thinking that everyone is completely self-interested implies that government by consent is impossible.

Answer Anticipation:
This actually looks like pretty sound conditional reasoning.
"If everone is totally self interested --> no govt by consent --> no democracy".

The flaw in the conclusion is an annoying one, which is basically just that we can't take a conditional chain that exists and conclude that someone who believes the first part also believes the later parts.

For example, consider the conditional "If you're Clark Kent, then you're also Superman."
We can't say that "since Lois Lane believes she's sharing an elevator with Clark Kent, Lois Lane believes she's sharing an elevator with Superman." She might not know that 'Clark Kent = Superman'.

Similarly, social theorists who think that everyone is self-interested might not know that "total self interest implies lack of govt by consent which implies no democracy". So we can't be sure that they have any beliefs about the futility of democracy.

Correct Answer:
A

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) Yes! If we didn't anticipate this answer coming, we would do what we always do with "infers, merely from [the premise], that [the conclusion]": ask ourselves, DOES this match the core? In this case, it's a little trickier than that since the conclusion itself makes this leap. (the 'evidently' in the conclusion is there to sort of show us how the author is making an opinionated move from the first half of that sentence to the second half). But we could still see how the language of (A) applies to the argument. Social theorists who hold a certain belief are assumed to also hold an implication of that belief. "implies" = derivable inference / the conditional arrow.

(B) This describes the classic flaw of Whole to Part. However, nothing in this argument resembled the flow of "Because sociology believes that X, every sociologist also belives X."

(C) This is just Part to Whole, but still a non-starter.

(D) This is the ol' classic Ad Hominem (attacking the source, not the argument). The author isn't even attempting to discredit a theory. His conclusion is simply saying "anyone who believes X must also believe Y".

(E) This is like an upside down version of the classic Unproven vs. Untrue, in which the author thinks "since the evidence was faulty, the conclusion must be wrong". This answer choice is attacking an author who's arguing, "Since their conclusion was wrong, their evidence / assumptions must have also been wrong." But our author isn't calling anyone's conclusion / premise / assumptions wrong at all.

Takeaway/Pattern: Although this flaw has appeared multiple times over the years, it's not common enough to be listed in the classic. Essentially, the big 'tell' of this flaw is that we're concluding something about people's beliefs. It's really hard to conclude what someone would believe based on other beliefs they hold. To do so, you have to assume that the person is aware of all the connected ideas and is rational enough to have made that connection before and developed the implied belief. Luckily for us, we can get rid of B/C/D easily if we know our famous flaws, since this argument is clearly not Part vs. Whole or Ad Hom.

#officialexplanation

[jennifer]

This stimulus is very beefy, are there any tips you can give to get to the correct answer choice. I was able to eliminate D and E, but struggled and got the answer wrong.

[americano1990]

Well also (B) and (C) are easy to eliminate because the argument doesnt have ANYTHING to do with part to whole or whole to part flaw.

So with (B)~(E) gone, the answer choice (A) is correct.

I think the flaw itself is new. I havent run into such kind thus far, but its not anything too complex.

Okay here is the thing.
There is
1. Belief: every person concerned with self interest only
2. Implication of that belief: gov. by consent is IMPOSSIBLE
3. Conditional relationship: Democracy--> gov. by consent.

NOW going to the argument's reasoning.
Social theorist who hold that belief (#1 above) will believe that democracy wont be achieved. Hhmm.. this raises a red flag.

In order for this to work, the social theorist must ALSO hold the IMPLICATION (#2 on the list) of the belief (#1). But who is it to say that if you believe in 'statement A' you also believe in its implications?

For instance. lets say for now that the Belief that going to law school is cool implies that you are a lill geek. Is it necessarily true then that if you believe in the former you embrace the latter? Not rlly...

Thats the flaw, hope it helps~

[lhermary]

I'm not quite seeing the gap despite the explanation....

I did conditional logic for this one.

Premise: concerned with self-interest -> ~government by consent
Conclusion: Social theorist -> concerned with self-interest -> democracy is futile
Premise: ~government by censent -> democracy is futile

It looks sound to me.

Where did I go wrong?

[bbirdwell]

I think reducing this argument to conditional logic is an over-simplification. By doing so, you've missed something vital in the conclusion: the word "belief."

You're correct that there is a visible and coherent fact pattern in the premises, developed via the statements regarding consent and self-interest and democracy.

The flaw occurs in the conclusion itself. Just because a relationship between self-interest and futile democracy has been demonstrated by the evidence does not, in any way, relate to anyone's BELIEFS about that evidence.

You might think of it this way:
Just because I demonstrate that A --> B --> C doesn't mean that certain people who BELIEVE A necessarily BELIEVE C.

When seen this way, the correct answer is easily identifiable, and none of the others even comes close -- how many choices contain the word "belief"?

(B) and (C) are both group vs individual flaws, which do happen on the LSAT, but not here.
(D) is way off.
(E) is smoke and mirrors designed to confuse into thinking too much about it.

[joseph.m.kirby]

I believe the flaw committed in this question relates to mistakenly applying the transitive property. Overall, the argument fails in that it transfers a person's belief in something to the extended logical implications of that belief (which one might not have considered).

We are told that if every person is concerned with A (self-interest), then that implies ~B (government by consent is not possible). Therefore, social theorists who believe A evidently believe D (democracy is futile), because ~B --> D.

Diagrammed:

A --> ~B
~B --> D
------
Social theorists who evidently believe A --> believe D

A similar flaw would be:

The view that buying products from country X is OK implies that country X's tyrannical dictatorship is OK, since the sale of products generates tax revenue for the government.

Therefore, people who believe that buying products from country X is OK evidently believe that supporting tyrannical dictatorships is also OK.

[Dkrajewski30]

Got this one right through POE. A. clearly addresses the argument core while the others don't come close. But I still wasn't as confident when I selected it as I probably should've been. On first glance, the argument didn't appear all that unreasonable. After all, if I believe x, and x implies y, then it seems I believe y too. But this isn't what the argument is saying! It's saying that if I believe x (self-interest view), and x implies y (government by consent is impossible), and y implies z (democracy impossible), then I believe z. But this need not be the case, because who's to say that I agree with what the author says are the implications of x?

Going through it now, I see that the author is assuming without justification that those who endorse the self-interest view agree with the author that government by consent is necessary for democracy. Granted, if they do agree with the author about this, then it is clear that holding the self-interest view logically commits one to also hold the view that democracy is impossible, as if the self-interest view is true, then something that democracy needs to even have a chance of existing - government by consent - is incompatible with everybody being concerned exclusively with their self-interest. But who is to say that they agree with the author? Maybe, if asked, they'd say that government by consent isn't necessary for democracy, and then given that, their view is still compatible with democracy and so the author is incorrect to conclude that they believe aspiring to democracy is pointless.

But the argument is still tripping me up on this point. Is it also flawed in the respect the author assumes without justification that x implies y, or in other words, that self-interest view implies that government by consent is impossible? In the above discussion, I was closing in on the x implies z of the logical x - y - z implication chain. But of course, who is to say that the self-interest proponents believe that their view implies that government by consent is impossible? You ask them if they do, and it turns out they don't. They say that gov. by consent is perfectly compatible with everybody being self-interested. And in this case, just as in the prior case when we deny that x necessarily implies z, democracy is still compatible with the self-interest view. Only this time, maybe it's the case that the author and the self-interest people agree that gov. by consent is necessary for democracy. What makes the author's conclusion false this time is the consideration that the necessary condition can still be satisfied even if one holds the self-interest view - in other words, democracy is still possible.

But is the argument flawed in this x to y respect? On LR, I operate under the assumption that premises are to be taken for granted. And the opening premise states that x implies y, so since we're just supposed to assume the truth of x implies y, how can that be what we key in on as the flaw of the argument? It seems then we have to go after the x to z implication in order to show it's flawed. However, stating that gov. by consent is necessary for democracy is also stated as a premise. I mean, yes, he clearly gives us no reasons for holding the opening premise or this latter premise, but again, I thought you were supposed to take premises for granted. Someone please clarify this!

[547494985]

Got this one right through POE. A. clearly addresses the argument core while the others don't come close. But I still wasn't as confident when I selected it as I probably should've been. On first glance, the argument didn't appear all that unreasonable. After all, if I believe x, and x implies y, then it seems I believe y too. But this isn't what the argument is saying! It's saying that if I believe x (self-interest view), and x implies y (government by consent is impossible), and y implies z (democracy impossible), then I believe z. But this need not be the case, because who's to say that I agree with what the author says are the implications of x?

Going through it now, I see that the author is assuming without justification that those who endorse the self-interest view agree with the author that government by consent is necessary for democracy. Granted, if they do agree with the author about this, then it is clear that holding the self-interest view logically commits one to also hold the view that democracy is impossible, as if the self-interest view is true, then something that democracy needs to even have a chance of existing - government by consent - is incompatible with everybody being concerned exclusively with their self-interest. But who is to say that they agree with the author? Maybe, if asked, they'd say that government by consent isn't necessary for democracy, and then given that, their view is still compatible with democracy and so the author is incorrect to conclude that they believe aspiring to democracy is pointless.

But the argument is still tripping me up on this point. Is it also flawed in the respect the author assumes without justification that x implies y, or in other words, that self-interest view implies that government by consent is impossible? In the above discussion, I was closing in on the x implies z of the logical x - y - z implication chain. But of course, who is to say that the self-interest proponents believe that their view implies that government by consent is impossible? You ask them if they do, and it turns out they don't. They say that gov. by consent is perfectly compatible with everybody being self-interested. And in this case, just as in the prior case when we deny that x necessarily implies z, democracy is still compatible with the self-interest view. Only this time, maybe it's the case that the author and the self-interest people agree that gov. by consent is necessary for democracy. What makes the author's conclusion false this time is the consideration that the necessary condition can still be satisfied even if one holds the self-interest view - in other words, democracy is still possible.

But is the argument flawed in this x to y respect? On LR, I operate under the assumption that premises are to be taken for granted. And the opening premise states that x implies y, so since we're just supposed to assume the truth of x implies y, how can that be what we key in on as the flaw of the argument? It seems then we have to go after the x to z implication in order to show it's flawed. However, stating that gov. by consent is necessary for democracy is also stated as a premise. I mean, yes, he clearly gives us no reasons for holding the opening premise or this latter premise, but again, I thought you were supposed to take premises for granted. Someone please clarify this!

hi, I think the "X implies Y "should be taken as granted. the argument's problem is that the author assumes that if X has the implication Y, than people believe in X would also believe in it's implication Y. the argument turned false when the author says that because a bunch of people believe in X, they would also believe in Y, which is unjustified, those people could also not believing in Y. you can argue that they are being illogical, since X implies Y, which we taken for granted, but who said they can't be illogical? well, people behave illogically all the time, they surely could believe in X and reject its implication Y.

it's how I understand your question, hope it helps

[Mab6q]

I don't think this is an uncommon flaw, it might have appeared on a previous PR or PF question.

[jm.kahn]

I have done this question a few times before and only this time did I see the gaps clearly. Prior to this I was arriving at the answer by elimination. I'm posting this because there is another gap in the argument than what any of the posts above mention and which was the only one I'd noticed in my previous takes of this question.

The other gap in the argument is the argument makes a conclusion about "aspiring" to democracy whereas the support only exists for "possible"ness of democracy. The social theorists may have support for believing that democracy is not possible, but they may still believe that "aspiring" to it may not be futile. Note though that "aspiring to democracy is futile" is not an implication of "democracy is not possible", and so the choice A doesn't really fit this gap (which is why I wasn't satisfied with my pick on earlier takes and felt that I was missing something). Nonetheless this is a valid gap even though the credited answer doesn't target it.

[XiangL836]

The flaw I noticed the first time I saw this question was the leap from "every person is concerned exclusively with his or her own self-interest" to "people are concerned only with their self-interest". Are they necessarily the same thing? Why couldn't the latter be a group of people who are concerned with the interest of their own group instead of individual interest? I remember having seen a similar flaw in another question like this, so I was confused that no one brought this up. Please help!

[ChadC139]

Question Type:
Flaw (reasoning is flawed)

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: Social theorists who think people are completely self-interested apparently think that aspiring to democracy is futile.
Evidence: Democracy is only possible when you have government by consent, and thinking that everyone is completely self-interested implies that government by consent is impossible.

Answer Anticipation:
This actually looks like pretty sound conditional reasoning.
"If everone is totally self interested --> no govt by consent --> no democracy".

The flaw in the conclusion is an annoying one, which is basically just that we can't take a conditional chain that exists and conclude that someone who believes the first part also believes the later parts.

For example, consider the conditional "If you're Clark Kent, then you're also Superman."
We can't say that "since Lois Lane believes she's sharing an elevator with Clark Kent, Lois Lane believes she's sharing an elevator with Superman." She might not know that 'Clark Kent = Superman'.

Similarly, social theorists who think that everyone is self-interested might not know that "total self interest implies lack of govt by consent which implies no democracy". So we can't be sure that they have any beliefs about the futility of democracy.

Correct Answer:
A

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) Yes! If we didn't anticipate this answer coming, we would do what we always do with "infers, merely from [the premise], that [the conclusion]": ask ourselves, DOES this match the core? In this case, it's a little trickier than that since the conclusion itself makes this leap. (the 'evidently' in the conclusion is there to sort of show us how the author is making an opinionated move from the first half of that sentence to the second half). But we could still see how the language of (A) applies to the argument. Social theorists who hold a certain belief are assumed to also hold an implication of that belief. "implies" = derivable inference / the conditional arrow.

(B) This describes the classic flaw of Whole to Part. However, nothing in this argument resembled the flow of "Because sociology believes that X, every sociologist also belives X."

(C) This is just Part to Whole, but still a non-starter.

(D) This is the ol' classic Ad Hominem (attacking the source, not the argument). The author isn't even attempting to discredit a theory. His conclusion is simply saying "anyone who believes X must also believe Y".

(E) This is like an upside down version of the classic Unproven vs. Untrue, in which the author thinks "since the evidence was faulty, the conclusion must be wrong". This answer choice is attacking an author who's arguing, "Since their conclusion was wrong, their evidence / assumptions must have also been wrong." But our author isn't calling anyone's conclusion / premise / assumptions wrong at all.

Takeaway/Pattern: Although this flaw has appeared multiple times over the years, it's not common enough to be listed in the classic. Essentially, the big 'tell' of this flaw is that we're concluding something about people's beliefs. It's really hard to conclude what someone would believe based on other beliefs they hold. To do so, you have to assume that the person is aware of all the connected ideas and is rational enough to have made that connection before and developed the implied belief. Luckily for us, we can get rid of B/C/D easily if we know our famous flaws, since this argument is clearly not Part vs. Whole or Ad Hom.

#officialexplanation

I appreciate your re-wording of answer A to a grammatical structure that makes sense. I read through each answer choice three times before ultimately selecting A through POE, but without the commas that you've added, the answer seems to read that argument is flawed because it [the argument] infers that a person's belief is that he or she [that person] believes an implication of that [what??] belief.

I'm sure the sentence I've just written seems somewhat nonsensical, but I mustn't be the only one who reads A as similarly nonsensical without bracketing the modifying clause off in commas.

Is my grammatical understanding of the answer incorrect?

[ohthatpatrick]

Yeah I couldn't quite follow the way you were reading (A), but it certainly DID seem confusing.

See how the grammatical structure of (A), (B), and (C) are all the same?

The only difference is that (B) and (C) use a dependent clause ("because something IS true"). Clauses contain verbs, so they decided to write a comma once the dependent clause ended.

The punctuation doesn't actually make any sense to me. If you're going to bother with the comma, you are supposed to surround that dependent clause with commas.

f.e.:
I decided that, since today is my birthday, I will pay $4 for a croissant

Anyhoo, we need to do enough Flaw questions to be very familiar with answer choices that are structured in forms such as these:
concludes that X on the basis of Y
concludes on the basis of Y that X
infers X from the claim that Y
infers Y from the claim that X

In all four cases the thing being concluded/inferred is X, and the evidence/grounds/basis is Y.

It seemed like when you hit the part of (A) that said "that belief", you were like, "WHAT belief?!"

"That / this / these / those" are indicative pronouns that refer back to something just mentioned. So "that belief" at the end of (A) has to match up with "a belief" earlier in (A).

Naturally, LSAT doesn't spell out which belief we're talking about, but if there IS a belief in argument that we could insert into that answer, then it could be a valid answer.

Since the conclusion is about what social theorists BELIEVE, we know which belief this answer is alluding to.

(A) says that the argument is flawed because it
infers merely from the fact of social theorists' holding a belief that people are concerned only with their self-interest that those same social theorists believe an implication of people's being concerned only with their self-interest.

Hope this helps.

[TaliaR358]

Picked (A) because it was the closest answer that i could see that fit the gap in the reasoning, even though i didnt really understand what it meant.

Now looking back, my interpretation of (A) in regards to the stimulus is that;
Social theorist belief is purely that people are concerned only with their self-interest. The author than extends that belief (via "evidently") and states that because they hold this belief, that they must also believe that aspiring to democracy is pointless ....because apparently anyone believes that people are only concerned with their own self-interest also are aware that it implies government by consent is impossible.

Thus conforming to answer (A) That the author incorrectly infers from the fact that social theorist attain this belief, that they also believe the implication of that belief