Logical reasoning PrepTest 130 · Section 3 · Question 4

Incorrect. The argument doesn't treat actors as being liberals and agreeing with their view, but as serving as a counterexample to the beliefs of liberals. You don't need to believe in a viewpoint to be a counterexample to that view. (This would only be the case if the argument were about hypocrisy, in which case the person acting hypocritically must hold the hypocritical view.)

Incorrect. This answer describes an Attack on the Person flaw. However, the Politician doesn't dismiss the liberal view just because it's made by "liberals," but rather because of a counterexample she raises. This answer is only correct if the author ignores the opposing argument and focuses only on the group making that argument.

Incorrect. Liberals believe that there's a moral obligation not to engage in censorship. The Politician concludes that censorship is not inherently morally wrong, so she doesn't believe that there's a moral obligation in this situation.

Incorrect. The only premise that the Politician accepts as true is that the conclusion that actors are morally wrong for refusing a role they disagree with is absurd. That doesn't contradict the conclusion, so this self-contradiction answer is incorrect.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Liberals: Censorship is inherently wrong

Politician:
Supposed example of liberal view - An actor refusing a part they morally disagree with would be wrong.
Conclusion on example - It's absurd
Conclusion - Censorship is not inherently wrong

Answer Anticipation:
This argument has elements that suggest two specific common flaws.

The first is that the Politician raises an opposing point and then reaches a conclusion that's the polar opposite of that viewpoint. Liberals believe censorship is inherently wrong; the Politician believes it isn't. When that's the case, the argument often has an Absence of Evidence flaw—pointing out a flaw in the argument and then concluding that that proves the conclusion is false. However, the Politician doesn't simply point out a flaw in the opposing point—she shows that their argument leads to an absurd conclusion, which does counter that view. As such, there's no Absence of Evidence flaw.

The second is that the Politician brings up an example for the liberals. She doesn't state that liberals use the example of actors refusing a role to highlight their view; she believes it highlights their view. Whenever an author is characterizing an opposing point—and especially when they put words in their mouth—there's always the chance in a strawman. Here, there's no indication that the example of an actor refusing a part counts as censorship, but the Politician relies on it to discredit a view on censorship. Therefore, we should look for an answer bringing up this straw man rebuttal.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the straw man engaged in by the Politician. Liberals are against censorship, and the Politician brings up an example that has an absurd conclusion, but she never ties it into censorship. If the actor example doesn't constitute censorship as defined by the view that claims it's morally wrong, then the counterexample fails as such.

Key Takeaway:
Whenever an author is the one characterizing the opposing viewpoint, there's a chance that they're engaged in a straw man attack—bringing up views or examples that the opposing point wouldn't agree is included in their view.