Q20 - The report released by

[jiyoonsim]

I couldn't really make my mind up between C and E. Is C right answer because it has less flaws/more believable than E? But then, E sounds pretty much agreeable too....

[theaether]

The original flaw is appealing to an expert/authority who has very little to do with the topic at hand. For an environmental issue, the argument is appealing to a brilliant mathematician.

in (E) the argument is appealing to a engineer, albeit a bicycle expert, but an engineer, to produce a claim about a physical sports activity. The 2 topics are different.

in (C) the argument appeals to a breathing specialist about someone else's claim about breathing. The two topics are related.

The original flaw was having one expert of one topic produce a claim about a different topic, so (C) is not as similar in reasoning as (E). And since we're asked to find the most similar flaw, we have to go with (E) here even though both seem very similar and in my opinion, bad arguments.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Let me just also add one more thing - though theaether's explanation was great.

Be on the lookout for appeals to an authority figure on questions that ask you to describe how the argument procedes. And inappropriate authorities on questions that ask you to identify the flaw in the argument.

When the flaw is an appeal to an inappropriate authority, they usually try and make that person seem very authoritative, by making them an expert at something, even if they're not an expert in the field of discussion.

[WaltGrace1983]

Is (B) wrong because Gloria's "credentials" are never established?

[maryadkins]

I think (B) is wrong both for that reason, and because Gloria isn't claiming the policy is wrong like in the stimulus and in (E), she's just saying she wasn't given the opportunity. Maybe students got the opportunity outside of class. Maybe the teacher emailed it to students.

As for the others, just to be thorough:

(A) doesn't appeal to authority at all.
(D) contains a conditional in the conclusion, which we don't have in the stimulus.

Hope this helps.

[jones.mchandler]

The original flaw is appealing to an expert/authority who has very little to do with the topic at hand. For an environmental issue, the argument is appealing to a brilliant mathematician.

in (E) the argument is appealing to a engineer, albeit a bicycle expert, but an engineer, to produce a claim about a physical sports activity. The 2 topics are different.

in (C) the argument appeals to a breathing specialist about someone else's claim about breathing. The two topics are related.

The original flaw was having one expert of one topic produce a claim about a different topic, so (C) is not as similar in reasoning as (E). And since we're asked to find the most similar flaw, we have to go with (E) here even though both seem very similar and in my opinion, bad arguments.

Just got pwned by C

I picks up on the flaw (inappropriate appeal to authority) but it seemed to me that the authority issue was one of bias--citing a politician who could be biased against the interior ministry. It seems like appealing to a mathematician is ok in this scenario, as the stim states that "if these figures are accurate, the program [is] a success". What's wrong with using a mathematician to satisfy a sufficient condition such as that?

Also, E seemed to be different than the flaw within the stimulus. E states that Moira actually "observed" something, whereas in the stimulus the "observation" (whether the amount of arable land increased) seems to be up for debate.

Any thoughts on this?

[WaltGrace1983]

The original flaw is appealing to an expert/authority who has very little to do with the topic at hand. For an environmental issue, the argument is appealing to a brilliant mathematician.

in (E) the argument is appealing to a engineer, albeit a bicycle expert, but an engineer, to produce a claim about a physical sports activity. The 2 topics are different.

in (C) the argument appeals to a breathing specialist about someone else's claim about breathing. The two topics are related.

The original flaw was having one expert of one topic produce a claim about a different topic, so (C) is not as similar in reasoning as (E). And since we're asked to find the most similar flaw, we have to go with (E) here even though both seem very similar and in my opinion, bad arguments.

Just got pwned by C

I picks up on the flaw (inappropriate appeal to authority) but it seemed to me that the authority issue was one of bias--citing a politician who could be biased against the interior ministry. It seems like appealing to a mathematician is ok in this scenario, as the stim states that "if these figures are accurate, the program [is] a success". What's wrong with using a mathematician to satisfy a sufficient condition such as that?

Also, E seemed to be different than the flaw within the stimulus. E states that Moira actually "observed" something, whereas in the stimulus the "observation" (whether the amount of arable land increased) seems to be up for debate.

Any thoughts on this?

I'd encourage you to step very slightly out of your LSAT-mind for a second (though you probably don't need to).

The original argument looks like this:
(P) If the figures are accurate, the program is very successful
(P) Armand - an indisputably brilliant mathematician - maintains that it was not successful
(C) Thus, the figures are not accurate

All that is basically going on is a conditional statement, followed by the negated necessary condition, logically followed by the negated sufficient condition. There is absolutely no logical flaw in the argumentative tactic that Armand is using!

Accurate → Successful, ~Successful
Thus: ~Accurate

The logic is sound. So what can we pick on? Well who's to say that Armand actually knows ~(Successful). What's to say that Armand is speaking indisputable truth? We know that Armand is brilliant, sure, but can't brilliant people also be wrong?

(C) This one is tricky because it IS appealing to the authority of Dr. Treviso. However, Treviso is a cardiopulmonary specialist, an expert, of what is being discussed here. IN ADDITION, Treviso is not merely saying "I don't think you can hold your breath for that long, therefore you can't." Treviso is saying that humans are "physiologically incapable of holding their breath for even half that long!" This is much different from merely saying, "I think this - therefore, I know this." Treviso is basically backed, not ONLY by himself, but by science. Once again, he is also an expert in the very thing he is talking about (shown by his specialty in cardiopulmonary stuff).

(E) is much different than (C). Lomas is not discussing aspects of bicycle engineering, he is discussing bike racing. That would be like the president of Louisville Slugger talking about how Babe Ruth could not have hit 61 homeruns in a season. In addition, (E) rests only on Lomas' insistence - not on anything else. This is very similar to the original argument and is thus the correct answer.




I'd also like to add that (D) rests on a different flaw. Robert is mistaking the necessary condition (~Midnight → ~listened to late night news) as a sufficient condition (~listened to late night news → ~Midnight). Maybe she just didn't want to listen to late night news.

(A) doesn't appeal to authority.
(B) was discussed above.

[jones.mchandler]

I'd encourage you to step very slightly out of your LSAT-mind for a second (though you probably don't need to).

The original argument looks like this:
(P) If the figures are accurate, the program is very successful
(P) Armand - an indisputably brilliant mathematician - maintains that it was not successful
(C) Thus, the figures are not accurate

All that is basically going on is a conditional statement, followed by the negated necessary condition, logically followed by the negated sufficient condition. There is absolutely no logical flaw in the argumentative tactic that Armand is using!

Accurate → Successful, ~Successful
Thus: ~Accurate

The logic is sound. So what can we pick on? Well who's to say that Armand actually knows ~(Successful). What's to say that Armand is speaking indisputable truth? We know that Armand is brilliant, sure, but can't brilliant people also be wrong?

(C) This one is tricky because it IS appealing to the authority of Dr. Treviso. However, Treviso is a cardiopulmonary specialist, an expert, of what is being discussed here. IN ADDITION, Treviso is not merely saying "I don't think you can hold your breath for that long, therefore you can't." Treviso is saying that humans are "physiologically incapable of holding their breath for even half that long!" This is much different from merely saying, "I think this - therefore, I know this." Treviso is basically backed, not ONLY by himself, but by science. Once again, he is also an expert in the very thing he is talking about (shown by his specialty in cardiopulmonary stuff).

(E) is much different than (C). Lomas is not discussing aspects of bicycle engineering, he is discussing bike racing. That would be like the president of Louisville Slugger talking about how Babe Ruth could not have hit 61 homeruns in a season. In addition, (E) rests only on Lomas' insistence - not on anything else. This is very similar to the original argument and is thus the correct answer.




I'd also like to add that (D) rests on a different flaw. Robert is mistaking the necessary condition (~Midnight → ~listened to late night news) as a sufficient condition (~listened to late night news → ~Midnight). Maybe she just didn't want to listen to late night news.

(A) doesn't appeal to authority.
(B) was discussed above.

Thanks for that reply, Walt. I agree with everything you said.

I think the error in my reasoning actually came from what I initially thought eliminated E as TCR. I thought that Moira's "observation" about the bicycle race didn't correspond to the argument in the stimulus, but after thinking I realized that is analogous to the original assertion in the stimulus--that the program had increased the amount of arable land or whatever it was.

The argument then states that the senator disagrees with that observation, which lines up with the bicycle engineer in E.

[scienceconnie]

Hello. I chose the correct answer after narrowing down the answers to C and E for a different reason: C uses "has stated" while E uses "insists" when describing the experts' opinion. Since the stimulus uses "maintains," I thought E was a better match. Is this type of reasoning warranted if I encounter similar mismatches in the future?

[logicfiend]

Hi scienceconnie, I think that is an important distinctions! I think it goes along with another flaw in the stimulus that the expert outright rejects the claim without any evidence. They "insist" or "maintain" the claims are false, but don't give any evidence for that strong conclusion.

This also helps differentiate C. Not only is the expertise relevant in C, but he provides evidence to back up his rejection of the claim—it's impossible for anyone to hold their breath for even half that long.