Logical reasoning PrepTest 153 · Section 3 · Question 19

Incorrect. There's no appeal to authority here. That would look like "famous chef So-and-So says sentimentality adds to the aesthetic value of movies; therefore the critics are wrong."

Incorrect. No ulterior motive has been alleged. Rather, the critics think that their opinion is right, not realizing they've come to that opinion based merely on exposure to a lot of movies.

Incorrect. There's no conditional reasoning in the stimulus, so we can't have a converse fallacy.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Movie critics think sentimentality detracts from aesthetic value. But they're wrong, because they believe that for a silly reason: they see a lot of movies, and movies tend to be sentimental. So now, because it's unusual, they find movies that lack sentimentality more interesting. Kinda like people who always eat food with a particular seasoning, and end up deciding that the seasoning itself detracts from the flavor.

Answer Anticipation:
The stimulus does a good job of establishing that critics have a silly reason for being opposed to sentimentality in movies. But does sentimentality detract from aesthetic value or not? We can't tell from the argument in the stimulus, which is exactly what's wrong with it. The whole thing attacks the critics' reason for believing what they believe, rather than the belief itself. They could have silly reasons to think this way, and yet still be correct. It's just an ad hominem in fancy clothing.

Answer Explanation:
And there it is! You can't judge an opinion to be incorrect just because someone came to it in a ridiculous way. (Remember the old story about the apple falling on Sir Isaac Newton's head? That's a pretty ridiculous way to discover the law of gravity, but, its inherent silliness doesn't mean there's no gravity.)

Key Takeaway:
One common form of trap answer: things that "sound LSAT-y," like lots of blah-blah about sufficient and necessary conditions. If you fall for those often, you might not understand conditional reasoning yet. A full and comprehensive understanding of sufficient and necessary conditions will allow you to recognize when they're not present.

Incorrect. Same problem as C. The stimulus isn't based on conditional reasoning, so it couldn't have a flaw that only affects arguments made by means of conditional reasoning.