- Fri Apr 15, 2016 5:09 pm
#23178
Complete Question Explanation
Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (C)
This argument is flawed because it creates a False Dilemma.
The argument attempts to justify the practice of fabricating remarks by asserting it "avoids the more serious misrepresentation that would occur" otherwise. However, the argument does not establish prior to making this assertion that quoting an interviewee's exact words necessarily results in a "more serious misrepresentation." Perhaps there are other options, such as printing the exact quote and then following it with a skilled writer's distillation of the ideas expressed by the interviewee. By assuming away all other options in order to justify its conclusion by forcing the reader to accept the lesser evil, the argument creates a False Dilemma.
Note that the sitmulus hints at this as the reasoning error when it states that the practice of fabricating remarks "has been decried as a form of unfair misrepresentation." We generally consider journalistic misrepresentations to be inherently unfair, and so this description of the current misrepresentation as "unfair" seems redundant. Already, the argument is attempting to set up a False Dilemma, in which it limits us to only two options, each of which is a misrepresentation. Clearly, the argument suggests, when an "unfair misrepresentation" will certainly occur otherwise, it is "entirely defensible" to choose a less serious misrepresentation.
Armed with our prephrase, that the argument creates a False Dilemma by assuming without support that only the two stated options exist, we can head to the answer choices. Answer choice (C) describes this reasoning flaw. An "adequate" defense is one that is sufficient, and that language is synonymous with the wording used in the stimulus, "entirely defensible." The argument views the defense offered as sufficient because it assumes away all other possibilities. Answer choice (C) is correct.
consider why the remaining answer choices are incorrect. Recall that an incorrect answer choice to a Flaw in the Reasoning question will either fail the Fact Test, because the stated error did not occur in the stimulus, or it will describe something that appeared in the stimulus but did not constitute a reasoning error.
Answer choice (A): This answer choice describes a Source Argument ("undermining the personal authority of those who made the charge"). Since the argument does not include a source argument, answer choice (A) fails the Fact Test.
Answer choice (B): This answer choice describes an Appeal to Authority. For this answer choice to be correct, the argument must assert that because journalists are esteemed we should not criticize their practice. Since this argument does not make that claim, answer choice (B) fails the Fact Test.
Take a moment to note the use of the word "prestige" in this answer choice. As often occurs on the LSAT, this word has more than one level of meaning, each of which is helpful in understanding why answer choice (B) describes an Appeal to Authority. In the common usage, "prestige" has a positive aspect, and we tend to respect and heed the advice of those in prestigious positions. However, the word "prestige" derives from a Latin noun meaning "delusion" or "illusion," and from a Latin verb meaning to "blindfold," "dazzle," or "confuse." This same root gives us the word "prestidigitation," meaning "sleight of hand;" think of the 2006 movie "The Prestige," starring Hugh Jackman and Christian Bale as rival magicians. So, to reach a conclusion based on the prestige of the speaker is a reasoning error because you allow the brilliance of that person's reputation to blind you to the substance of the argument.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. See discussion above.
Answer choice (D): This answer choice fails the Fact Test, because the argument did not conclude that the practice was "right," only that it was "entirely defensible." Those terms are not synonymous. Something that is necessary may be the "right decision" under the circumstances, but that does not mean that the decision is "right" in an absolute sense, that it is just or virtuous.
Answer choice (E) This answer choice also fails the Fact Test, because the argument does not contain an admission made by an opponent. Note that this answer choice describes an Error in the Use of Evidence, specifically the assumption that the presence of some evidence in support of a position (i.e., "a practice is sometimes appropriate") proves that position to be true (i.e., "that practice is never inappropriate").
Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (C)
This argument is flawed because it creates a False Dilemma.
The argument attempts to justify the practice of fabricating remarks by asserting it "avoids the more serious misrepresentation that would occur" otherwise. However, the argument does not establish prior to making this assertion that quoting an interviewee's exact words necessarily results in a "more serious misrepresentation." Perhaps there are other options, such as printing the exact quote and then following it with a skilled writer's distillation of the ideas expressed by the interviewee. By assuming away all other options in order to justify its conclusion by forcing the reader to accept the lesser evil, the argument creates a False Dilemma.
Note that the sitmulus hints at this as the reasoning error when it states that the practice of fabricating remarks "has been decried as a form of unfair misrepresentation." We generally consider journalistic misrepresentations to be inherently unfair, and so this description of the current misrepresentation as "unfair" seems redundant. Already, the argument is attempting to set up a False Dilemma, in which it limits us to only two options, each of which is a misrepresentation. Clearly, the argument suggests, when an "unfair misrepresentation" will certainly occur otherwise, it is "entirely defensible" to choose a less serious misrepresentation.
Armed with our prephrase, that the argument creates a False Dilemma by assuming without support that only the two stated options exist, we can head to the answer choices. Answer choice (C) describes this reasoning flaw. An "adequate" defense is one that is sufficient, and that language is synonymous with the wording used in the stimulus, "entirely defensible." The argument views the defense offered as sufficient because it assumes away all other possibilities. Answer choice (C) is correct.
consider why the remaining answer choices are incorrect. Recall that an incorrect answer choice to a Flaw in the Reasoning question will either fail the Fact Test, because the stated error did not occur in the stimulus, or it will describe something that appeared in the stimulus but did not constitute a reasoning error.
Answer choice (A): This answer choice describes a Source Argument ("undermining the personal authority of those who made the charge"). Since the argument does not include a source argument, answer choice (A) fails the Fact Test.
Answer choice (B): This answer choice describes an Appeal to Authority. For this answer choice to be correct, the argument must assert that because journalists are esteemed we should not criticize their practice. Since this argument does not make that claim, answer choice (B) fails the Fact Test.
Take a moment to note the use of the word "prestige" in this answer choice. As often occurs on the LSAT, this word has more than one level of meaning, each of which is helpful in understanding why answer choice (B) describes an Appeal to Authority. In the common usage, "prestige" has a positive aspect, and we tend to respect and heed the advice of those in prestigious positions. However, the word "prestige" derives from a Latin noun meaning "delusion" or "illusion," and from a Latin verb meaning to "blindfold," "dazzle," or "confuse." This same root gives us the word "prestidigitation," meaning "sleight of hand;" think of the 2006 movie "The Prestige," starring Hugh Jackman and Christian Bale as rival magicians. So, to reach a conclusion based on the prestige of the speaker is a reasoning error because you allow the brilliance of that person's reputation to blind you to the substance of the argument.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. See discussion above.
Answer choice (D): This answer choice fails the Fact Test, because the argument did not conclude that the practice was "right," only that it was "entirely defensible." Those terms are not synonymous. Something that is necessary may be the "right decision" under the circumstances, but that does not mean that the decision is "right" in an absolute sense, that it is just or virtuous.
Answer choice (E) This answer choice also fails the Fact Test, because the argument does not contain an admission made by an opponent. Note that this answer choice describes an Error in the Use of Evidence, specifically the assumption that the presence of some evidence in support of a position (i.e., "a practice is sometimes appropriate") proves that position to be true (i.e., "that practice is never inappropriate").
