LR Question 21 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Professor Riley characterized the university president’s speech…
QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning
CONCLUSION: It isn’t true that the president’s speech was inappropriate, unless we have independent confirmation that the speech was inflammatory.
REASONING: Riley claimed that the speech was inappropriate because it was inflammatory. But we shouldn’t believe Riley when he says the speech was inflammatory.
ANALYSIS: A complex argument. First, Riley introduces a conditional statement.
Inflammatory ➞ Inappropriate
The author doesn’t dispute this claim. But the conclusion makes a mistaken negation. It says that the speech is not inappropriate because it is not inflammatory.
Inflammatory ➞ Inappropriate (conclusion)
This is a bad technique. There could be other reasons the speech was inappropriate, even if it wasn’t inflammatory. You can have a necessary condition without a sufficient condition.
___________
- CORRECT. Yes. Maybe the speech was inappropriate because it was factually incorrect, even if it wasn’t inflammatory.
- On the LSAT, it’s almost never a flaw to make a conditional statement, such as ‘Inflammatory ➞ Inappropriate’.
- The author didn’t favor the president because of his standing as president. The author just said Riley’s evidence is unreliable because of Riley’s interest in the matter.
- We don’t know whether Riley has anything to gain. It could be that nobody wins in this dispute.
- Even if you’re well founded in hatred, that could still bias your judgment.
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.
Am I correct to sense an Ad Hominem flaw in the sentence “However, Riley has a feud… so we should not conclude… solely on the basis of Riley’s testimony”?
Yes, that is correct. The argument criticizes the person making the argument rather than the argument itself.
Hi,
Unless I have it backwards, did you mean to write “You can have a necessary condition without a sufficient condition” ?
For example, the speech could be inappropriate (necessary) without being inflammatory (sufficient).
Yes, thanks for catching that! The page has been updated.
Hey Graeme,
I don’t know if I might be missing something in the conditional statement for the conclusion above but the representation is exactly the same as the evidence that Riley gave. Shouldn’t the conclusion read:
~Inflammatory –> ~Inappropriate (Conclusion)?
I agree with the mistaken negation, I was just a little confused by the conditional statement below it.
No, you’re right. There was an error when transferring this explanation from my book to the website. The strikethrough on the conclusion didn’t copy over. Fixed it, thanks!