Logical reasoning PrepTest 137 · Section 4 · Question 14

Incorrect. The argument doesn't assume that the experts haven't changed their opinions, just that one set is right and the other wrong. An expert can change their conclusion from something that's wrong to something that's right when new evidence is presented.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Tagar disagrees with Swiderski and Terrada, so she's wrong.

Answer Anticipation:
This entire argument is about the dueling experts, and the Astronomer dismisses the view of one expert because he disagrees with two others. However, there's no discussion of the facts that they disagree on on the merits—instead, it's simply taken for granted that the experts the Astronomer relies on are right and so Tagar—in disagreeing with them—is wrong.

Since the argument prefers one set of expert opinions over another without giving any reason to believe them over the other, this argument is flawed because of that reliance.

Answer Explanation:
The Astronomer concludes that Tagar is wrong because she disagrees with two biologists. However, no reason is given to believe that the two biologists are correct and Tagar is wrong. This answer highlights that flaw.

Key Takeaway:
When an argument relies on expert opinion, it's likely that there's some flaw in the way that that is done. When there are two opposed expert opinions, make sure the author justifies siding with one over the other.

Incorrect. While the stimulus sides with a determination it notes has at least 2 supporters over a determination that is noted as having only 1, there are two problems with this answer. First, it never cites the numbers as the reason for siding with the larger group, which it would need to do for this answer to be correct. Second, it never establishes that only Tagar holds her view, and only Swiderski and Terrada hold theirs—it's possible that Tagar's view is the predominant one.

Incorrect. While the Astronomer does discuss two views that contradict each other, she doesn't rely on both being true to support her conclusion. Rather, she appeals to a contradicting view to rule out the other. This answer only describes a flaw if the author of the argument relies on both contradictory statements being true to reach the conclusion, thus committing a self-contradiction error of reasoning.

Incorrect. The Astronomer sides with one set of experts over another expert, so she doesn't assume that all expert opinions are equally justified.