Q25 - Many conceptual categories are parts

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Match the Flaw

Stimulus Breakdown:
Science has shown a few "opposites" to actually overlap. Therefore, the general idea of "opposites" should be thrown out.

Answer Anticipation:
Wow, that's a huge jump. The argument gives a few examples, and then generalizes to all examples. That's a classic flaw - a Bad Generalization. Let's find an answer that similarly jumps from some examples to all examples.

Correct answer:
(B)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Wrong flaw (Term Shift). The premise in this argument is about all computers, so it mismatches the stimulus where the premise was about some dichotomous pairs. This argument shifts between "needs replacing" and "not powerful enough".

(B) Shazam. Some antianxiety drugs are bad, therefore we should stop using all of them. This answer/argument generalizes from some medications to all medications, thus matching the flaw of the stimulus.

(C) I'd argue this answer is valid. While you could argue there's a term shift between "dangerous" and "should get off the road", that's probably a jump the LSAT would let you make. Outside of that, the premise is about all drunk drivers, and we don't generalize from there; the conclusion is also about all drunk drivers.

(D) Wrong flaw. I don't know what flaw I'd classify this as, but the conclusion is about a specific set of peaches, so it's not generalizing. If anything, this answer goes in the wrong direction - a generalization (keep fruit longer, more likely to go rotten) is used as a premise to support a conclusion about a specific instance (these peaches). Since it's reversed, it doesn't match.

(E) Wrong flaw (Unproven vs. Untrue). This answer throws out a budget because it's based on bad assumptions. However, it could still be a good budget for other reasons.

Takeaway/Pattern:
This stimulus more or less broadcasts the flaw when it includes the word "generally" - pro test takers know these language cues and use them to guide their approach!

#officialexplanation

[EmilyL849]

Hello, teachers

I have a question on (E).
The official answer for (E)’s flaw is “even if budget is based on untenable assumptions, it could still be good for other reasons. So, we cannot warrant throwing it out.” However, I think if the plan is based on untenable data, it is not unreasonable to argue for a replacement with more realistic numbers. Since the support for replacement hinges on bad assumptions, a new budget will only substitute the bad assumptions with more sensible ones while leaving other good things intact.

I think the flaw with this (E) is an assumption that whatever happened in the past will necessarily continue in the future.
"Okay, just because past revenue records show numbers to be untenable does not mean they will continue to be so in the next two years. Things could have changed and figures might be realistic now".

Is my reasoning okay?

Thank you very much!

[ohthatpatrick]

I think both of those explanations can work for shooting down (E).

No matter what, it isn't a good match for
"since this thing doesn't work for these few cases, this thing should be generally abandoned."

I think you're correct that there's a temporal flaw in thinking that revenue figures for the past years are convincingly indicative of how the next two years will go.

But I also think Matt is correct that there's an Unproven vs. Untrue flaw happening.

It's possible to conceive of a budget that should be allowed to go forward, even if its figures are based on unrealistic assumptions:

Say you're a politician who's advancing a bill that allocates some money to alleviate homelessness. Maybe you write a budget based on unrealistic assumptions because you know that your political opponents are going to try to negotiate your number down later, so you'd rather that number start artificially high.

Hope this helps.