Determining the flaw in the argument
Help Questions
LSAT Logical Reasoning › Determining the flaw in the argument
Modern medicine has taken a turn for the worse. Doctors prescribe treatments that can cause serious side effects. The ailments that doctors treat have existed for many years. Yet, the treatments prescribed are novel and dangerous. Treatment side effects cause not only things like itchy eyes or upset stomachs, but rather, depression, heart failure, and damaged immune systems. Natural remedies are preferable because they have been used widely for thousands of years. Also, most natural remedies carry comparatively low risk of serious side effects.
The argument is most clearly flawed for which of the following reasons?
The argument assumes a preference for treatments that have existed for a longer time than treatments that are newer
The argument offers no reason why natural remedies are preferable to modern treatments
The argument fails to address whether natural remedies cause side effects as severe as those of modern treatments
The argument draws an overly broad conclusion
The argument relies heavily on an appeal to emotion
Explanation
The argument asserts that natural remedies cause less severe side effects than modern medical treatments, but it also makes an independent argument that natural remedies have been around for a long time. Without additional information, there is no support for concluding that one thing is better than another because it has been used for a longer time.
Russell: Not all high-carbohydrate diets are unhealthy. Several conclusive studies have shown that people on high-carbohydrate diets can obtain a full complement of healthy foods.
Steven: You are wrong to assert that high-carbohydrate diets cannot be unhealthy. Eating a lot of carbohydrates can prevent people from consuming nutritious vegetables and fruits. Also, people whose diets are heavy in carbohydrates tend to engage in risky behavior that reduce their standards of living.
Steven’s response to Russell is most vulnerable to the criticism that his reply
Is directed against an argument that Russell did not make.
Uses complex language to ignore the issue Russell is attempting to raise.
Takes for granted that carbohydrates are unhealthy.
Does not disprove the argument that risky behavior is actually associated with a healthier lifestyle
Relies on an ambiguous use of the term “unhealthy.”
Explanation
Steven’s response to Russell is non-responsive. Russell is only saying that it is possible to be healthy even if you have a high-carbohydrate diet. Steven only points out scenarios where one’s health is compromised by having a diet heavy in carbohydrates but does not prove that it is impossible to have a healthy diet that is heavy in carbohydrates. The correct answer points out this problem.
Several leading experts in the field of economics have predicted that the rate of growth in Yakistan will increase of the next few years. However, one Professor from the University of Kazubistan has conclusively proven that economic predictions tend to be unreliable. Therefore, we can conclude that Yakistan will experience negative growth for the next few years.
Which one of the following best explains in the flaw in the reasoning above?
It assumes that if we cannot make accurate predictions about a situation that the opposite of the predictions is correct.
It relies on a Professor with unspecified qualifications.
It relies on the testimony of leading experts in the field of economics who may have an incentive to overstate their findings for political reasons.
It relies on an ambiguous use of the term “growth.”
It does not specify what it means to experience negative growth.
Explanation
The major flaw in the reasoning of the passage is that the stimulus in no way proves that Yakistan will experience negative growth. Simply showing that a prediction of positive growth may be inaccurate does not prove the opposite statement. Only the correct answer shows this flaw. The other answers either are irrelevant or not an actual flaw in the stimulus.
Mayor: Critics of the Healthy Eating Bill are delaying passage of this important law because they disagree with the more narrow definition of the term “unhealthy foods.” However, this legislation will place stricter limits on the type of foods that will be available to the public than our current laws. Therefore, by splitting hairs over semantics, these critics show their apathy to the public’s health.
The Mayor’s reply to the opponents of the Healthy Eating Bill is most vulnerable to which of the following criticisms?
It fails to adequately recognize the possibility that the definition of the term “unhealthy foods” determines the impact of the legislation.
It labels the critics of the Bill as supporters of the fast food industry.
It attempts to defend the reputation of the author of Bill rather than the merits of the actual Bill.
It assumes that does who seek to defeat the Bill will profit from its defeat.
It connects the motives of those who oppose the bill with the motives of those who produce soda.
Explanation
The Mayor’s statement that the critics are “splitting hairs over semantics” indicates that he does not believe that the definition of the term "unhealthy foods" makes a difference to the argument. However, this is only his opinion. In actuality, a more restrictive, narrow definition of the term “unhealthy foods” may make significant difference to the critics of the bill. For example, a definition that excludes foods reputedly considered harmful to the public such as one that includes high fructose corn syrup or trans fat would not have the same impact as one that does; thus, support or criticism for the bill could turn on the definition of “unhealthy foods.” Therefore, the correct choice is: “It fails to adequately recognize the possibility that the definition of the term “unhealthy foods” determines the impact of the legislation.”
Criminal trials that are tried before a jury end up in guilty verdicts two out of every three times, while trials that are tried before a judge end up in guilty verdicts three out of every four times. Therefore, a criminal defendant has a better chance of receiving a not guilty verdict if he elects to try the case before a jury (made up of jurors) instead of a judge.
Which of the following is a flaw in the argument?
Several variables affect whether defendants elect a judge or jury trial.
Judges have a better understanding of the law than jurors.
Jurors tend to be more emotional than judges.
Juries deliver longer sentences for guilty defendants when compared to judges.
Both judges and juries find more defendants guilty than they find defendants not guilty.
Explanation
The flaw in the argument is best represented by the choice that several variables affect whether defendants elect a judge or jury trial. These variables could influence if a defendant is found guilty or not. For example, defendants who are guilty but who wish to receive shorter sentences may elect the forum in which that is more likely. This could skew the results for guilty verdict rates. None of the other choices represent a flaw in the argument.
Beth: We should stop spending so much time and money on climate change research. From the studies I've read, even if it is an issue, it will not significantly affect our lifestyle for thousands of years. With the pressing problems we face today, we cannot afford to expend our resources in such a way. Besides, it's politically divisive.
Stan: So you'd rather we just turn a blind eye and ignore climate change? It's not just future generations that will be affected by these issues. Having environmental awareness right now will help to solve our energy and waste problems, not to mention the impact on health. You have to look at the bigger picture.
Stan's response to Beth's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on which of the following grounds?
It attempts to refute a distorted version of an opposing position.
It cites irrelevant data in support of its conclusion.
It presupposes what it seeks to establish, and ignores potential counterevidence.
It appeals to evidence which has not been properly supported.
It fails to recognize the importance of planning for one's future.
Explanation
Stan's response focuses on awareness of climate change, whereas Beth's argument was about spending time and funding on climate change research. Therefore Stan distorts Beth's position and attempts to argue against the distorted position. The other answer choices, to the extent that they are valid at all, are not nearly as fundamental to Stan's reasoning.
Doctor X: I disagree with Doctor Y’s proposed treatment plan for Mr. Jones. Doctor Y recommends that Mr. Jones undergo surgery because he is in substantial pain. However, Mr. Jones cannot afford to pay for the procedure or the cost of the hospital stay.
The reasoning in Doctor’s X’s argument is flawed because the argument:
uses evidence concerning the economic feasibility of acting on a recommendation as a basis for questioning of the validity of the recommendation
compares the use of short-term versus long-term analysis
fails to analyze the issue presented in terms of what is best for the patient
engages in ad hominen attacks
does not take into account the comforts and amenities of the hospital where the procedure will be performed
Explanation
Doctor X only focuses on whether Mr. Jones can afford the procedure and does not discuss the medical merits of Doctor Y’s recommendation. Therefore, there is a scope shift. In other words, just because Mr. Jones cannot afford Doctor Y’s recommendation does not mean that his recommendation is suspect. This is reflected in the correct answer choice that states Doctor X’s flawed argument, “uses evidence concerning the economic feasibility of acting on a recommendation as a basis for questioning of the validity of the recommendation.”
Market analyst: Physical media, like DVDs and CDs, will not be sold for much longer. In the past five years, digital movie downloads have increased by 60%, and digital music downloads have increased by 70%. These trends are likely to continue, especially when one considers the fact that digital media content providers are not hampered by the manufacturing and labor costs of physical media.
The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument
presumes, without providing justification, that an increase in sales of one type of media necessarily leads to a decrease in sales of another type
fails to define the terms “manufacturing” and “labor”
fails to take into account the possibility that some digital movies and music are illegally downloaded
fails to provide a source for its claim that digital download trends are likely to continue
presumes that the rights to most movies and music will be given to digital media content providers
Explanation
The argument provides no data indicating that sales of physical media are decreasing, nor does it explain any connection between increased digital media sales and physical media sales. Without additional information, one could assume that both types of media are increasing in sales. The incorrect answer choices do not attack the argument’s reasoning, but focus on other factors which do not necessarily affect the conclusion.
Journalist: Television programming executives are always searching for the right combination, but are essentially never successful. New shows are constantly put behind hits in vain efforts to boost new projects, while previously well-watched shows are shunted around with no purpose other than to accommodate special events like sports or election coverage.
Which of the following best describes the flaw with the journalist's argument?
Network television schedules are determined by many factors other than just viewer ratings.
Network television ratings are difficult to measure in small sample sizes.
The position of "programming executive" is not a position of similar rank across different networks.
Programming at television networks is typically heavily reliant on statistical models.
Most television viewers are unaware of how a television network schedules its programming.
Explanation
The argument is essentially a blanket castigation of "television programming executives," especially for the way they move shows with specific ratings around the schedule. This means that the journalist assumes that all programming decisions are made based on ratings alone, which the commentary about "sports or election coverage" belies.
Movie critic: Films nowadays rely heavily on special effects and computer graphics to entertain audiences. Fifty years ago, when such technology did not exist, films had to rely on well-written plots and dialogue to keep the audience’s attention. It is clear that today’s written screenplays are not held to the same standards they would have been fifty years ago.
The movie critic’s argument is flawed in that it
assumes that the standards of written screenplays nowadays are lower based solely on the prevalence of special effects and computer graphics
attacks modern screenplays on an aesthetic basis rather than a logical basis
downplays the importance of acting and directing in determining the box office success of films
provides no basis for the assertion that certain technology did not in fact exist fifty years ago
fails to consider the possibility that audience’s attention spans were longer fifty years ago, and thus they were more easily entertained
Explanation
Nothing in the argument supports the conclusion that screenplay standards have dropped; all we know is that there are more special effects and computer graphics. Whether these entertain audiences more than the screenplay is beside the point. The movie critic does not address the possibility that modern films could still have well-written plots and dialogue regardless of their special effects.