Q4 - My suspicion that there is some

[tzyc]

I got this one correct, but want to double check why (C) is wrong.
Is it because it just says "most prominent physicists" but the stimulus says "most physicians I have talked to" ?
So most prominent physicists can be over 50% of the whole but "most physicians I have talked to" can be only 10% of the whole so although (C) is more valid, the one in stimulus is not valid?

Thanks,

[ohthatpatrick]

I think you definitely identified 1 of the 2 key things about (C) that make it wrong.

As you said, "most physicists" is WAY more impressive evidence than "most physicians I have talked to".

However, the second element is the way the original argument and the correct answer involve appealing to experts for a subject matter that lies beyond their expertise. (that's the LSAT way of describing that flaw)

The original argument was concerned with whether there's some truth to astrology. Whom did they ask? Physicians.

Well, what the heck do physicians know about astrology?

In (B), the issue is whether governmental social programs are wasteful. Whom did they ask? Biology professors.

Why would a biology professor be an appropriate judge of governmental social programs?

In (C), the issue is whether quantum mechanics is the best physical theory we have. Whom did they ask? Physicists.

Oh. I see.

You probably picked up on the original flaw mainly as, "just because a few people you asked told you X, that doesn't mean X is true."

But we also could have complained, "why are you asking people who specialize in Y about something that deals with specialty X?"

Hope this helps.

[olaizola.mariana]

I got this question right by eliminating the other options as they were clearly wrong. Still, there seems to be a mismatch between answer choice (B) and the original argument in that the latter has someone stating that their suspicion was objectively confirmed while (B) has someone coming to a personal conclusion based on the opinions they were able to gather. Is this a trivial difference, or could this answer have been wrong if there had been one that matched better -- in the way just described?

[ohthatpatrick]

That's a nice nuance to examine, but (B) doesn't strike me as importantly different.

If you say "I have come to the conclusion that ____", it's pretty equivalent to "I have confirmed my suspicion that _____".

And the type of evidence used was pretty identical.

You made a distinction between "their suspicion was objectively confirmed while (B) has someone coming to a personal conclusion based on the opinions they were able to gather".

I don't see that difference. Both authors gathered opinions and came to a personal conclusion.

The original author gathered the opinions of physicians.
The author in (B) gathered the opinions of biology professors.

Neither of those represent "objective" confirmation. If you're gathering opinions, you're getting other people's subjective thoughts and then you're choosing whether or not to trust those opinions enough to start believing the same way.

I think the original author makes it more apparent that he's taking the physicians' opinions as fact. Suspicions? Confirmed!

But (B) is doing the same thing. He's taking the opinion of biology professors and then treating those as factual confirmation of something.

The only real difference I see is that the original author lets us know that he already had begun thinking that astrology had some merit. The author in (B) doesn't tell us that he had already been mulling over the idea that these programs were wasteful.

But all of this very ticky-tack hair splitting is not what Match the Flaw is all about. There can be significant structural differences between the correct answer and the original argument, as long as the correct answer replicates the flaw.

[olaizola.mariana]

Thanks so much. Although I still see "confirmation" as somehow more objective/irrefutable than coming to a conclusion, it helps to know that this is not something to focus on in this type of question.