Q23 - Mayor Smith, one of

[tzyc]

I chose (C) thinking that if she does not have knowledge about the nuclear power plant, it is unreasonable to believe what she said...(whether what she said is correct or not)
Is (C) wrong because even it is established that it is informed opposition, it does not mean that when she agrees with the plant, the plant is guaranteed safe?
(eg. maybe she agreed because she was threatened or offered a bribe etc...?)

Thank you

[griffin.811]

I chose (C) thinking that if she does not have knowledge about the nuclear power plant, it is unreasonable to believe what she said...(whether what she said is correct or not)
Is (C) wrong because even it is established that it is informed opposition, it does not mean that when she agrees with the plant, the plant is guaranteed safe?
(eg. maybe she agreed because she was threatened or offered a bribe etc...?)

Thank you

So this is a commonly tested flaw. When I see flaw questions, the first thing I like to do is ask myself. "what has the author failed to consider." In this case, it is just as you pointed out. The author assumes that one possible conclusion is the only possible conclusion. Maybe she was threatened or bribed etc... and the construction is still just as unsafe as before.

However, if we new the reason she opposed the construction before (maybe she did think it was unsafe at the time), and/or the reason she now supports the construction (maybe the engineers decided to implement additional safety measures) then the author would be in a better postion to draw the conclusion she does.

C is wrong because it is tries to make a causal relationship where there isnt one. If it said Smith has a record of outspoken and consistent opposition, so she must be informed, then C would address the assumption that would need to be made (consistent and outspoken=informed).

In this case however, C is redundant. We are to except our premises/background info as given and not question the truth of these.

Finally like you said, it seems out of scope of the "core"

P: Someone with Smith record favors the plant, then there is good reason to believe it to be safe.
P: Smith Favors plant
C: Plant should be built

who cares if her reasons for opposition are opposed?

I was actually looking for an answer that tied "believed to be safe" with "should be built" maybe something like: "Assumes without warrant that anything that is believed to be safe should be built."

HTH

[zczlzti]

HOW ABOUT D
WHY D IS WRONG?
THANK YOU

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type: Flaw

Task: Identify a problem with the author's reasoning.

ARGUMENT CORE:
(evidence)
MS has previously opposed nuclear plants
+
MS supports building one in Littletown
==========
(conc)
thus, there's good reason to believe this should be built

EVALUATE THE CORE:
Hmmm, is someone switching from one position to another "good reason" to believe that their new position is correct? Why was their old position wrong? Why do we assume their new one is better founded? It's just as likely that someone's previous position was sounder than their current position.

Overall, one person's testimonial isn't worth too much on LSAT. In this case, it's even worse because we don't even hear WHY Mayor Smith supports the new plant.

ARGUE THE ANTI-CONC:
How would we argue that there is NOT good reason to believe that the new plant should be built? We could say that Smith switched her position based on bad information / coercion / ulterior motive. We could call into question why we're even using her as the barometer of whether this plant is a good idea. Is she an expert in this field?

(A) Is this an objection: "some people who never speak out about issues of nuclear power are okay with nuclear power".

What could we even match that up with from the argument? It doesn't relate to Mayor Smith, because she IS someone who speaks out on nuclear power issues. Eliminate.

(B) Is this an assumption the author needs to make: "electing someone into office gives them a grasp of the science needed to make technical decisions". Does this author need to assume that everyone elected to office thereby is given scientific knowledge?

No. The author DOES need to assume that Mayor Smith's opinion on the nuclear plant is trustworthy / credible, but that's it. This assumption is way too sweeping to be necessary to the author's argument.


(C) Does the author need to assume this: consistent, outspoken opposition is always informed opposition.

Again, too strong. (beware strong language with necessary assumptions). The author DOES need to assume that at least SOME outspoken opposition is informed opposition (the author needs to assume that MS is a credible, informed source).

(D) Does the author's logic commit him to believing that "If Mayor Smith publicly supports a project, that project should be sanctioned"?

No, because that wasn't the author's sole premise. Yes MS supports the new plant, but the author is particularly valuing her previous opposition. "If someone with her past antinuclear record now favors ...".

So this answer could be right if it said ".. should be sanctioned simply on the basis of her having shifted from outspoken opposition into outspoken support".

(E) This is true. The author gives NO reason why we should build the "safe" nuclear plant other than MS's shifting opinion, which is not a real reason for believing anything.

(E) is correct.