Logical reasoning PrepTest 138 · Section 3 · Question 21

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Riley: The President's speech was inflammatory and thus inappropriate
Rebuttal: Riley has a feud with the President, so we shouldn't take her word for it
Conclusion: If there aren't independent reasons to believe the speech was inflammatory, it wasn't inappropriate

Answer Anticipation:
This is a very interesting Errors in Reasoning question because it lets us dig into two flaws that have more subtlety to them than most expect—the ad hominem flaw, and the absence of evidence flaw.

For the ad hominem flaw, the argument does reference a bias on the part of Riley. Normally, that would be an ad hominem attack—it doesn't address her argument, but rather something about her. However, the argument doesn't jump from discussing her bias to concluding that her argument is wrong. Instead, it mentions that because of her bias, we can't "solely" rely on her statement to determine judgment on the President's speech. A bias is a reason to be wary of an opposing point, and so there isn't an ad hominem attack here.

For the absence of evidence flaw, this argument skirts the line for it. While it does bring up an issue with Riley's argument before jumping to the opposite conclusion as her, it also conditions that conclusion on there not being independent reasons to believe the president's speech inflammatory. If the only reason to believe the speech inflammatory that exists is Riley's opinion of it, then it's hard to see how that conclusion could be supported. By qualifying the conclusion to remove all other potential pieces of evidence for the opposing point, this argument arguably avoids an absence of evidence flaw.

So what are we left with? Well, looking at both Riley's argument and the author's, we can see that they introduce a new term in their conclusions—inappropriate. This is based on categorizing the argument as inflammatory. Those are different terms. A speech could be appropriate yet inflammatory, or inappropriate yet not inflammatory. So there's a key term shift in the argument here that the correct answer is likely to address.

Answer Explanation:
Both Riley and the author of this argument discuss whether the speech is inflammatory in their premises, but inappropriate in their conclusions. That's a jump that this answer choice highlights, so this is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
Qualified conclusions frequently change up your analysis of what flaw is present in an Errors in Reasoning question. When there is such a qualification (here, "unless there are independent reasons to deem the president's speech inflammatory"), make sure you understand how it's limiting that conclusion, as it's likely ruling out at least one potential flaw.

Incorrect. Since the conclusion is that the President's speech was appropriate (under a certain condition), it doesn't fail to overlook that certain arguments are appropriate even when inflammatory. Broadening the scope of what speeches can be appropriate can only serve to help this argument.

Incorrect. First, there's no indication that the author does side with the President—maybe the President wanted to give an inflammatory/inappropriate speech. Second, the argument doesn't side with the President simply because he's the president—it notes the feud held by the critic of the speech as support for its conclusion.

Incorrect. While the stimulus does note that Riley has a bias against the President in the form of a long-standing feud, there's no indication that she has anything to gain from people accepting that the President's speech was inflammatory/inappropriate. This answer would be correct if there were a hint that, say, Riley would get promoted to president should the President be fired for making an inflammatory speech.

Incorrect. Even if the animosity is well founded, that doesn't speak to the content of the President's speech or Riley's reaction to it. She could have well-founded animosity that still colored her opinion of the speech, or she could have baseless animosity towards the President while levying legitimate criticism towards the speech.