Logical reasoning PrepTest 138 · Section 2 · Question 12

Incorrect. The conclusion is specifically about the claim on the drug's side effects, so there's no need to address other claims.

Incorrect. This answer is too extreme. It assumes that someone employed by the company has personal reasons to defend the drug, but that falls well short of assuming "anyone even remotely associated" with the pharmaceutical company is biased.

Incorrect. The conclusion of the argument isn't about the truth of the claims in the book but rather about the legitimacy of the doctor's critique. As such, it doesn't rely on the initial claim being right, as it just serves as a backdrop to analyze whether a biased individual can legitimately challenge the claim.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
A doctor who defended a drug from recent criticism is employed by the drug's manufacturer, so she's probably biased and her critique is therefore illegitimate.

Answer Anticipation:
The Journalist brings up the doctor's "personal reasons" for defending the drug from the criticism in the book. Whenever an argument focuses on the person instead of the argument, there's a good chance the argument commits an ad hominem fallacy.

Does this argument present any reason to believe the claims in the book should be accepted (i.e., claims they should be rejected are illegitimate) other than this attack of bias on the part of the doctor? Nope—that's the entirety of the argument. As such, we should find an answer that brings up this ad hominem flaw—it relies on pointing out bias to reject a claim instead of dealing with the claim itself.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the ad hominem attack/accusation of bias. Someone who's biased can still be correct!

Key Takeaway:
Any discussion of bias in an argument should get you to start thinking about an ad hominem flaw. Bias, hypocrisy, and criminality are the three most common ad hominem attacks.

Incorrect. This answer would be correct if the premise established that the critique wasn't legitimate, and the conclusion stated that the person making it must therefore have a personal bias. Since the argument does the opposite, this answer is wrong.