Q5 - Critic: Fillmore, an influential television executive

[mshinners]

Question Type:
ID the Flaw

Stimulus Breakdown:
Fillmore would benefit from his argument, so we should reject it.

Answer Anticipation:
Rejecting someone's argument because they may have ulterior motives is a flavor of Ad Hominem flaw.

Correct answer:
(C)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Wrong flaw (Illegal Reversal). This argument doesn't establish anything necessary for being harmful. (It lacks significant conditional language.)

(B) Wrong flaw (Unproven vs. Untrue). Some evidence is provided (children can learn from TV).

(C) Bingo. Questioning an argument because of the motives of someone making it is a flaw - they could be greedy and right.

(D) Wrong flaw (Appeal to Inappropriate Authority). Fillmore most likely isn't an expert on child psychology, so if the argument stopped with Fillmore's viewpoint, this could serve as an answer. However, the conclusion of the critic is that Fillmore is wrong, and since the critic doesn't offer any expert testimony to question Fillmore's view, this argument doesn't commit this flaw.

(E) Wrong flaw (Self-contradiction). This answer is common, and it's almost always wrong. The conclusion and premise have to directly contradict each other, which doesn't happen here.

Takeaway/Pattern:
Motives/goals are important on the LSAT, so always pay attention when they come up.

#officialexplanation