Logical reasoning PrepTest 110 · Section 2 · Question 1

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
R: Other researchers are arguing in bad faith, and their funding determines their findings.

Author: R is a mean egomaniac, so his book shouldn't be taken seriously.

Answer Anticipation:
R makes some serious claims in his book, but the author ends up dismissing them, concluding that the book "does not merit" serious attention. What's the reasoning offered by the author that R's book shouldn't be given the time of day?

R is "arrogant overly ambitious and sometimes plain nasty." That's an attack on the person instead of the arguments that they make. It's possible that R is arrogant ambitious nasty and right. Without addressing the content of what R says the author here can't dismiss it.

Let's find the answer describing an Attacking the Person flaw.

Answer Explanation:
This answer describes the author's attack on R's character instead of on his argument so it's the correct answer. R's book could still merit attention even if the person who wrote it is kind of a jerk.

Key Takeaway:
Whenever the author calls someone a name there's a really good chance that you're dealing with an Attacking the Person flaw.

Incorrect. This argument is implied to be R's reasoning, not the author's.

Incorrect. The author doesn't give any account of R's research—just some of R's statements on other researchers. As such, it can't rely on a biased account of that research.

Incorrect. It wouldn't be impossible for someone else to verify that R makes claims of bad faith or bias due to funding in the book.

Incorrect. The author completely ignores the issue of whether R's research reveals any truth so she can't fail to distinguish between being true and meriting attention. Instead she fails to distinguish between R and his work—the former could be a jerk while the latter could merit attention.