Q17 - Commissioner: I have been incorrectly

[jlz1202]

Could any one please explain why C is not a flaw? I saw the stimulus mentioned "made my decision on the report ...by neighborhood", the decision is indeed made on the basis of the report but could we infer that the report is the only direct evidence instead of one among many direct evidences?

[timmydoeslsat]

It is important to note that this question stem is essentially an identify the flaw EXCEPT question. Four of the answer choices will address a flaw committed by the argument, one will not.

The stimulus is quite possibly the worst argument ever formed on an LSAT!

We have the commissioner that concludes that he has been incorrectly criticized for having made his decision on the power plant issue prematurely.

Evidence for this?

- He based his decision on the report prepared by NA, although he has not studied it thoroughly. He is sure that the information in it is correct. We can already spot an assumption there.

- When he received input from NA on jail relocation, he agreed with its recommendation.


So we know that we are dealing with a terrible argument with many flaws awaiting for us to identify.

A) That is a necessary assumption in this argument. This makes it a flaw since this was not stated. Eliminate.

B) Incomplete recollections? We know he did not study it thoroughly, but that does not equate to incomplete recollections. For all we know, he has perfect and complete recollections of what he read from the recommendations.

This looks to be our answer.

C) This is a necessary assumption to the argument. The sentence, "I based my decision on the report prepared by the NA..." tells us that this was the only thing that it was based on for this issue. He does this and does not inform us that this information alone was sufficient to making a decision on such a large issue.

D) We spotted this flaw from the beginning. Of course it is a flaw to be sure that something is accurate without studying it thoroughly. Eliminate.

E) We also noticed how this tidbit came from way out in left field. The commissioner does assume that this past input agreement somehow justifies the current recommendation. Eliminate.

B is the flaw that is not committed in this argument.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Great explanation Tim!

[bearknowsthetrooth]

I am slightly confused about why A was eliminated. I feel like I've seen a lot of answer choices that bring up the possibility of bias, and we are usually supposed to assume that if a study/report is cited, then it is not biased. What makes this situation different from most of the others?

[sumukh09]

I am slightly confused about why A was eliminated. I feel like I've seen a lot of answer choices that bring up the possibility of bias, and we are usually supposed to assume that if a study/report is cited, then it is not biased. What makes this situation different from most of the others?

The question asks which one of the following criticisms would the commissioner's argument be LEAST vulnerable.

So A would definitely be a criticism that the commissioner would be vulnerable to.

[WaltGrace1983]

This one took me a little bit of time (too much). It was that last sentence that tripped me up! I really hate the way that this whole argument is worded but here is my analysis I wrote up. I'll post my question in a following post.

Commissioner "based" the decision on report prepared by NA
+
Commissioner is "sure" that info is accurate yet hasn’t studied it "thoroughly"
+
Commissioner agreed with NA’s recommendation in the past
→
Commissioner is "incorrectly criticized" for his decision

This is a slightly odd argument because of its wording. Some of its premises (especially premise 3) are hard to really identify as premises. Premise 3 just kind of...happens and this argument leaves a lot for us to imagine. Either way, there are few things about it that jump out at me.

Who is to say that the report is true?
Who is to say that the neighborhood association is a good source to base a decision off of?
Why is the commissioner "sure" that the information in the report is correct when he admittedly hasn’t studied it accurately?

When I was reading the stimuli for the first time, I had trouble seeing how the part about the previous agreement with the neighborhood association fit in but it will pop up.

Remember...the correct answer will be something that really isn’t a flaw!

(A) Yes! Since we have "takes for granted" we can think of this as a necessary assumption. Thus, if we negate this answer choice and it makes the argument fall apart then it is a great flaw! "The association’s information is NOT distorted in bias" becomes "The association’s information IS distorted in bias." Okay so if the information is distorted in bias would it follow that the commissioner has been "incorrectly criticized?" No! That is very realistic criticism! Thus, because the negation makes the conclusion fall a part, it is a flaw.

(C) Tough answer choice here. Why is this tough? It is tough because the word "based" in the stimulus is a little vague. Does "based" mean "completely based" or is it just the main basis? Since we are not given much information on it here, I think it is safe to assume that "based" means completely based. Once again though, let’s negate and see what happens! If there is other "direct evidence that needed to be considered" then is it rationale that the commissioner claims that he has been "incorrectly criticized" for "basing his decision" on just this report alone? Absolutely not! Because we negated and saw that the answer choice destroyed the argument, it is definitely a great flaw and thus a bad answer choice.

(D) Well yea! We know this! The commissioner blatantly says, "I am sure that he information is correct" though he has "not studied it thoroughly." This is basically a direct translation of this answer choice.

(E) Here is where that nasty premise 3 comes into play. I didn’t really think that this was the function of that last sentence but I think now it makes sense. The commissioner is basically saying, "well I agreed with them before and so I’ll probably agree with them again!" Yet maybe this is not the case. (E) is a great flaw and thus a bad answer choice.

(B) This is what this argument is all NOT about ☺. This is saying that, in order for this conclusion to make sense, he would have had to recall every single time that he did or did not agree with the recommendations of the neighborhood association? Is this really needed? Also, how do we know that he actually does have incomplete recollections? Maybe he has only been in contact with the neighborhood association once? Thus maybe his recollections are very much so complete. This doesn’t get at any flaw in the argument. Thus, it is the correct answer choice.

[WaltGrace1983]

As for my question (I didn't want it to get lost in that long analysis)...what is the function of the word "based" in LSAT arguments? I've seen it pop up a few times. Is "based" meaning the only basis or perhaps a main basis?

If I say, "Between X and Y, I chose X based on my aversion to Y," does that mean that I chose X solely because I have an aversion to Y? I feel like this is against the common use of the word if this is the case (though it wouldn't be the first time that the LSAT does this of course).

[tommywallach]

Hey Walt,

I haven't seen the use of "based" determine a question, but yes, my read would be that it's implying the primary/soul basis.

-t

[HughM388]

Would someone be kind enough to locate where the stimulus states that the commissioner is agreeing with the neighborhood association's current recommendation for the power plant? According to the stimulus he "based" his decision on the NA's report—but that in no way, shape, or form implies that he "agreed" with it. Indeed, he could just as plausibly have made his decision precisely because he disagreed with the NA's report, despite its presumed accuracy. All the report's facts and figures could have been perfectly accurate, but those facts and figures may have subject to a gross misinterpretation, to which the commissioner took particular exception. Moreover, there's more than enough reason to infer that the commissioner was purposefully drawing a distinction between his previous agreement with the NA, on the one hand, and his current disagreement with them over the power plant, on the other.

I distinctly read the stimulus as being, at the very least, agnostic about the nature of the NA's current recommendation for the power plant, whatever they may have recommended previously about the jail relocation. I even tended to infer that the commissioner was deliberately contrasting his previous agreement and his current disagreement, in order to show that his power-plant decision was eminently reasonable and not premature, because he made it against the recommendation of the NA. It's as if he were saying, "Look, my decision was not premature: though I happened to agree with the NA in the past on a certain issue, I'm not just rubber-stamping their recommendation on this issue now, so you can be sure that I duly considered all the evidence before making a decision."

That being the case, how could the commissioner's argument be vulnerable to a claim about his agreement with the NA's current recommendation when we don't even know what that recommendation is or is likely to be?

I preferred (B), until I read (E) and thereby discerned that, based on the facts presented (or absented, as the case may be), (E) was insupportable as an inference and a criticism, so that the commissioner's argument was necessarily invulnerable to it.