- Sun Jan 23, 2011 12:00 am
#37405
Complete Question Explanation
Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (C)
The stimulus contains a predictable argument/counterargument structure, introducing the anticonclusion
by describing what “some critics claim.” Regardless of what the critics might say, the
concert promoter is convinced that their concert series have popular appeal. Why? Because they
made just as much money from the sales of memorabilia at these concerts as they did from similar
sales at comparable series. She is assuming, of course, that the “comparable concerts” were popular
enough to compare their income to the income from the concerts in question. If that were not the
case, then the “comparable concerts” would be an exceedingly poor benchmark against which to
measure the success of any concert series.
You should immediately recognize this as a Relativity Flaw. Test makers often play on the distinction
between relative states and absolute states within arguments. This distinction is often subtle and can
be difficult to spot. The premises here only establish a comparison between the incomes from similar
sales at comparable concerts; meanwhile, the conclusion is an absolute statement, arguing that a
particular concert series has popular appeal.
Answer choice (A): The author does not attack the critics on the basis of emotional considerations.
There is no Appeal to Emotion flaw in this argument.
Answer choice (B): This is an incredibly attractive, yet incorrect, answer choice. Since the phrase
“takes for granted” is used to describe an unwarranted assumption in Flaw questions, we can apply
the Assumption Negation Technique to see if the logical opposite of the alleged assumption weakens
the argument. So, what if the income from sales of memorabilia were not the only indicator of
popular appeal? Even if that were the case, it is unclear whether the other indicators in question
would produce different results from the ones described in the argument. They might not. If they
were to show that the concert series are popular, this would strengthen—not weaken—the author’s
argument. Furthermore, it is also possible that the other indicators of popular appeal are not as
reliable or easily measurable as the sales of memorabilia.
Think of it in this way: even if the LSAT were not the only way to measure one’s potential to excel
in law school (it isn’t), it may still be a reliable indicator of potential for success. Since the logical
opposite of the assumption described in answer choice (B) does not weaken the concert promoter’s
conclusion, this answer choice does not describe an assumption upon which the argument is based.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. If the comparable series did not possess
popular appeal, then they would provide a poor benchmark against which to measure the popular
appeal of the concerts in question. Since the logical opposite of the statement described in answer
choice (C) weakens the argument, that statement is an assumption upon which the argument
depends.
Of course, the best way to approach this question would be to prephrase the Relativity Flaw and
look for an answer properly describing it. Failing that, you can logically negate any answer choice
that begins with the phrase “takes for granted,” or “presumes without justification.” If the answer
choice indeed contains a statement that the author took for granted (i.e. assumed), its logical opposite
should weaken the conclusion of the argument.
Answer choice (D): Given that the benchmark concert series are described as “comparable” and their
sales—“similar,” there is no reason to suspect that the author draws a conclusion about the popularity
of a series based on a comparison with other, dissimilar events.
Answer choice (E): There is no evidence of an Error of Division or Composition in this argument.
Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (C)
The stimulus contains a predictable argument/counterargument structure, introducing the anticonclusion
by describing what “some critics claim.” Regardless of what the critics might say, the
concert promoter is convinced that their concert series have popular appeal. Why? Because they
made just as much money from the sales of memorabilia at these concerts as they did from similar
sales at comparable series. She is assuming, of course, that the “comparable concerts” were popular
enough to compare their income to the income from the concerts in question. If that were not the
case, then the “comparable concerts” would be an exceedingly poor benchmark against which to
measure the success of any concert series.
You should immediately recognize this as a Relativity Flaw. Test makers often play on the distinction
between relative states and absolute states within arguments. This distinction is often subtle and can
be difficult to spot. The premises here only establish a comparison between the incomes from similar
sales at comparable concerts; meanwhile, the conclusion is an absolute statement, arguing that a
particular concert series has popular appeal.
Answer choice (A): The author does not attack the critics on the basis of emotional considerations.
There is no Appeal to Emotion flaw in this argument.
Answer choice (B): This is an incredibly attractive, yet incorrect, answer choice. Since the phrase
“takes for granted” is used to describe an unwarranted assumption in Flaw questions, we can apply
the Assumption Negation Technique to see if the logical opposite of the alleged assumption weakens
the argument. So, what if the income from sales of memorabilia were not the only indicator of
popular appeal? Even if that were the case, it is unclear whether the other indicators in question
would produce different results from the ones described in the argument. They might not. If they
were to show that the concert series are popular, this would strengthen—not weaken—the author’s
argument. Furthermore, it is also possible that the other indicators of popular appeal are not as
reliable or easily measurable as the sales of memorabilia.
Think of it in this way: even if the LSAT were not the only way to measure one’s potential to excel
in law school (it isn’t), it may still be a reliable indicator of potential for success. Since the logical
opposite of the assumption described in answer choice (B) does not weaken the concert promoter’s
conclusion, this answer choice does not describe an assumption upon which the argument is based.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. If the comparable series did not possess
popular appeal, then they would provide a poor benchmark against which to measure the popular
appeal of the concerts in question. Since the logical opposite of the statement described in answer
choice (C) weakens the argument, that statement is an assumption upon which the argument
depends.
Of course, the best way to approach this question would be to prephrase the Relativity Flaw and
look for an answer properly describing it. Failing that, you can logically negate any answer choice
that begins with the phrase “takes for granted,” or “presumes without justification.” If the answer
choice indeed contains a statement that the author took for granted (i.e. assumed), its logical opposite
should weaken the conclusion of the argument.
Answer choice (D): Given that the benchmark concert series are described as “comparable” and their
sales—“similar,” there is no reason to suspect that the author draws a conclusion about the popularity
of a series based on a comparison with other, dissimilar events.
Answer choice (E): There is no evidence of an Error of Division or Composition in this argument.