LR Question 6 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Editorial: The premier’s economic advisor assures her…
QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning
CONCLUSION: The premier shouldn’t listen to the advisor. His advice is surely wrong.
REASONING: The advisor was once convicted of embezzlement when he was young.
ANALYSIS: This is a pure ad hominem attack. It generally doesn’t matter who says something. It only matters what they say. If the advisor’s proposal is wrong, it must be because it has some flaw.
___________
- The argument rejected the proposal because it came from the advisor. They didn’t discuss how or why it might fail.
- The stimulus isn’t supporting the proposal. It’s arguing against it.
- CORRECT. The stimulus’ only evidence against the proposal is that the advisor once committed a crime. That amounts to no evidence.
- Not quite. The stimulus didn’t mention any evidence for or against the proposal. Here’s an example of the mistake described in this answer: “There is no evidence that humans can build a flying machine, therefore it is impossible for humans to build a flying machine.”
- This is not circular reasoning. The argument does have evidence: the advisor once committed a crime. It’s just not very good evidence.
More Resources for Flaw Questions
- Flaw drills: Use these to practice making examples of abstract flaws.
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Flaw questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers flaw questions.
I definitely say the sourcing flaw, but the conclusion does say “and so the premier should disregard…” which seemed liked the argument was essentially saying “since there is a lack of evidence, ie the fact that the advisor was a dirty rotten scoundrel, then the proposal is not possible”. I.e., a lack of evidence = disproven. What is the nuance I am missing here?
The editorial does not argue or even mention that there is a lack of evidence for the possibility of reducing taxes without significantly decreasing government services. Maybe there is, maybe there isn’t, but the clear basis for the argument of the editorial is a non-trustworthy source of information. That’s why (C) is the correct answer.
This is also an approach that should be taken with other Flaw questions — identify the primary reasoning of the argument, and why it is flawed. Also, be careful to ensure that there is specific evidence in the stimulus for any claim you make about the stimulus.
Ok that helps to clear it up – thank you! I am really seeing now that if you two answers seem right, then one of them is always the essentially/primary “correct” AC, and one of them is very much secondary, or at least one large logical leap away.
No problem. Just one more note: I’d be very careful to characterize correct answers that way. The vast majority of the time, incorrect answers can be very clearly ruled out on the basis of a significant lack of evidence in the stimulus to support them, or because they flat out contradict the stimulus. Be sure to look for clear reasons to eliminate answers.