- Thu Dec 19, 2019 9:03 pm
#72641
Complete Question Explanation
Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (C).
This question is asking us to identify the flaw in the critic's reasoning. To identify a reasoning flaw, first identify the conclusion and the premises, then ask yourself: why don't the premises fully prove that conclusion? In this case, the critic's conclusion is that we should reject Fillmore's argument. His premise for that claim is that it is beneficial to Fillmore to convince parents that television is not harmful to their children because he is a television executive. Why don't those premises prove that conclusion? This is a classic logical reasoning flaw: the Source Argument, also known as an Ad Hominem argument. Anytime an author attacks the person making a claim (usually by attacking the motives of the person—as we have here—or by suggesting that a person's behavior is in opposition to position) rather than the claim itself, that is a flawed argument. This is because the source of an argument should be irrelevant in a discussion of whether or not that argument is valid.
Even if Fillmore benefits from having children watch television, that is not enough to prove that he's incorrect in saying that television is not detrimental to children. This author even grants Fillmore's contention that children can learn from TV. So the author bases his argument that we should regret Fillmore's argument solely on Fillmore's potential ulterior motives, rather than attacking Fillmore's claims themselves. It's a really easy flaw to spot once you know to look for it and it's very common on the LSAT.
So since we've identified a common reasoning error—the Source Argument—we're looking for an answer choice that describes that flaw.
Answer choice (A): This answer choice describes a conditional reasoning flaw (specifically, a Mistaken Reversal). We don't have a conditional reasoning flaw in the stimulus so this answer choice is incorrect.
Answer choice (B): This answer choice describes an error in the use of evidence. The author never says there is no evidence to the contrary because the author is too busy attacking the source of the argument to be concerned with evidence.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. This answer choice describes the Source Argument the critic makes in the stimulus when he rejects Fillmore's argument solely on the grounds that Fillmore benefits from his argument.
Answer choice (D): This answer choice describes an appeal to authority which is another reasoning error, but not the one we have here. The critic does not say anything along the lines of "an authority believes this, so it must be true."
Answer choice (E): This answer choice describes an internal contradiction flaw. Again, this is not the flaw we have in this stimulus. An internal contradiction would be when the premises presented actually contradict the conclusion.
Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (C).
This question is asking us to identify the flaw in the critic's reasoning. To identify a reasoning flaw, first identify the conclusion and the premises, then ask yourself: why don't the premises fully prove that conclusion? In this case, the critic's conclusion is that we should reject Fillmore's argument. His premise for that claim is that it is beneficial to Fillmore to convince parents that television is not harmful to their children because he is a television executive. Why don't those premises prove that conclusion? This is a classic logical reasoning flaw: the Source Argument, also known as an Ad Hominem argument. Anytime an author attacks the person making a claim (usually by attacking the motives of the person—as we have here—or by suggesting that a person's behavior is in opposition to position) rather than the claim itself, that is a flawed argument. This is because the source of an argument should be irrelevant in a discussion of whether or not that argument is valid.
Even if Fillmore benefits from having children watch television, that is not enough to prove that he's incorrect in saying that television is not detrimental to children. This author even grants Fillmore's contention that children can learn from TV. So the author bases his argument that we should regret Fillmore's argument solely on Fillmore's potential ulterior motives, rather than attacking Fillmore's claims themselves. It's a really easy flaw to spot once you know to look for it and it's very common on the LSAT.
So since we've identified a common reasoning error—the Source Argument—we're looking for an answer choice that describes that flaw.
Answer choice (A): This answer choice describes a conditional reasoning flaw (specifically, a Mistaken Reversal). We don't have a conditional reasoning flaw in the stimulus so this answer choice is incorrect.
Answer choice (B): This answer choice describes an error in the use of evidence. The author never says there is no evidence to the contrary because the author is too busy attacking the source of the argument to be concerned with evidence.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. This answer choice describes the Source Argument the critic makes in the stimulus when he rejects Fillmore's argument solely on the grounds that Fillmore benefits from his argument.
Answer choice (D): This answer choice describes an appeal to authority which is another reasoning error, but not the one we have here. The critic does not say anything along the lines of "an authority believes this, so it must be true."
Answer choice (E): This answer choice describes an internal contradiction flaw. Again, this is not the flaw we have in this stimulus. An internal contradiction would be when the premises presented actually contradict the conclusion.