Argument Analysis - Primary Objective #3

[utpalbarman]

Hi folks,
Can someone give me an example about the second part of the below statement from the LR bible:

1)the premises do not prove the conclusion. As shown by this example,
the acceptability of the premises does not automatically make the conclusion
acceptable.
2)The reverse is also true—the acceptability of the conclusion does
not automatically make the premises acceptable.

I understand the 1) part but trying to understand how will an argument look like for 2).

Thanks
utpal

[Adam Tyson]

Sure thing, utpal! I'll give you an extreme example that I share with my students all the time, not from a real LSAT question:

I had a dream last night that the Eagles won the Super Bowl. In fact, I have been having this dream every night for the past week. I also have many friends who believe the Eagles will win. Therefore, the Eagles will win the Super Bowl.

You might accept the conclusion here, even while rejecting the usefulness of the premises and their supposed support for the conclusion. That is, you might agree that the Eagles will win, even while you place no faith in my dreams or my friends as support for that belief.

This actually comes up in a Flaw in the Reasoning scenario sometimes, and it would look like this:

Patriots Fan: Your dreams are not precognitive, because precognition does not exist! Your friends know nothing about football! Your whole argument is based on nonsense! Therefore, it is obvious that the Eagles will not win.

Here, the fan has made the flaw of confusing claims that weaken an argument with ones that disprove that argument. We sometimes call that a "some evidence" flaw - some evidence against a claim is taken as evidence sufficient to disprove that claim.

Let us know if that helps clear things up!