Logical reasoning PrepTest 144 · Section 2 · Question 4

Incorrect. While this answer might highlight a questionable assumption of the study that the Biologist defends, it's not a flaw of the Biologist's argument itself, which is focused on rebutting the Critics of the study.

Incorrect. The LSAT doesn't require every result of a study to have the mechanism by which it works fully explained (unless doing so is relevant to the conclusion), so this answer will rarely be correct.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Sure, the sample size of this study was small, but the author is a pro so critics are wrong to doubt the results.

Answer Anticipation:
A study was done, which would normally suggest we should look for a sampling flaw or a correlation/causation flaw. However, in this case, the argument doesn't reach a conclusion based on that study—rather, there's a debate over whether the study's results are good or not, with the Biologist arguing that its results should be accepted.

In fact, the Critics—the opposing viewpoint—bring up a sampling flaw in the study, using that to suggest that the results are questionable. The Biologist, however, says that they're wrong to question those results. Why? Because the author of the study is "well regarded" and does "excellent work."

So the Biologist completely ignores the legitimate issue brought up by the Critics, instead relying on the reputation of the person doing the study to argue for acceptance of the conclusion. This argument is flawed in that it ignores substance and plays up the positive characteristics of someone being criticized—almost an anti-ad hominem attack!

Let's look for an answer stating that the author ignores the opposing argument and instead focuses on the personal traits of someone, while avoiding any trap answers about a sampling flaw the study commits but the Biologist doesn't.

Answer Explanation:
The Critics bring up a valid criticism of the study. The Biologist, in rebutting their criticism, focuses on the qualifications of the study's author instead of the highlighted flaws in the study (even acknowledging that flaw!). By ignoring the point made by the Critics and instead focusing on the study's author, the Biologist's rebuttal fails, and thus this highlights the flaw in the argument.

Key Takeaway:
Any time the author of an argument focuses on a person involved rather than on an argument itself, the argument is flawed. While this particular instance isn't really an ad hominem flaw, it relies on the same type of flawed logic—focusing on a person and not on an argument.

Incorrect. Not everyone who is mentioned on the LSAT needs to be credentialed—especially if they're pointing out a valid flaw in an experiment. This answer will only be correct when the author of the argument is relying on that expertise to prove her point.

Incorrect. This answer would suggest that the Biologist is expecting more from the author's study than the critics, but there's no indication that there are expectations for other groups—just that the Biologist holds the study's author in high regard.