LSAT 144 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q4

LR Question 4 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Biologist: A careful study of the behavior of six…

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

CONCLUSION: The critics are wrong to doubt the study.

REASONING: The study’s author has a history of producing good work.

ANALYSIS: This argument makes a classic LSAT flaw: appeal to authority. We should judge a situation based on its merits, not based on the qualifications of a study’s author.

Note that, historically, LSAT questions will defer to relevant authority. For instance, an argument will assume a biologist is correct when they speak about (basic) biology that all biologists would agree with.

This is a decent assumption, and this question doesn’t depart from it. In this case, the author is speaking about a disputed area of biology. We can’t assume they’re correct just because they have expertise – critics disagree with them, and there are clear flaws in the study’s methodology that need to be addressed.

___________

1. The study said “lizards such as chameleons”. That doesn’t necessarily mean “all lizards”. That just means “lizards that are like chameleons in the relevant way”.
   “Such as”, used in this way, means “of the kind we’re talking about”. So this is no flaw.
2. We can prove something exists even if we don’t know how it works. Here, we’re just trying to prove that chameleons do regulate their vitamin D production using the sun. The mechanism isn’t necessary.
3. CORRECT. This is the problem. The biologist should have focussed on why the sample size wasn’t a problem. It’s no use merely saying “the author is good, so they must be right.”
4. Relevant expertise isn’t necessary. You can point out a problem with a study even if you’re not an expert. A problem is a problem, whether or not a biologist notices it.
5. Actually, the biologist holds the study’s author to a low standard. Since the author has expertise, the biologist ignores a problem with the study.