Logical reasoning PrepTest 156 · Section 2 · Question 5

First, what even is this question? The question is a rare variation of Errors in Reasoning question that mostly appeared on older LSATs. These questions ask us to assess an argument, choosing the answer choice that describes whether the argument is flawed and, if so, why. As with most arguments on the LSAT, these arguments are generally flawed, so we lump them in with the Errors in Reasoning questions. On an Errors in Reasoning question, we should take the time to articulate why the premise or premises aren't enough to prove that the conclusion is true. This argument may not be flawed, but let's start from the presumption that it is flawed and try to figure out why. In this argument, experienced test-takers will notice that the conclusion rejects a viewpoint, concluding that Peterson's analytic concepts are wrong. When an argument argues that a viewpoint, argument, or approach is wrong, there's always a chance that the argument commits one of the disputation flaws. Often, people assume that because they show that another argument is flawed or problematic, they've proven that the argument's conclusion is false. Here's an example. Suppose I argued, "Yesterday, I ate a midnight snack of two grapes and a carrot instead of my usual scoop of chocolate ice cream and handful of sour gummies. I woke up feeling great. So, eating a diet full of fruits and vegetables must be healthier than a diet full of candy and ice cream." This argument is very flawed; you surely can identify many issues with my reasoning. But does that mean my conclusion is false? Is eating a diet full of fruits and vegetables not healthier than a diet full of candy and ice cream? No, of course not. Just because I had garbage premises doesn't mean I reached a garbage conclusion. But that's what Zobel does to Peterson's analytical concepts. Even if we assume that Zobel proves that Peterson's students cannot make unbiased judgments about Peterson's concepts, Peterson's analytical concepts may still be true. We'd need proof from people other than Peterson's students, but that proof may be out there. Zobel can't say for certain that Peterson's concepts are wrong — just that her students won't provide compelling evidence of the concepts' validity. So, the correct answer will definitely say Zobel's argument is flawed, and it will probably reference this flaw. It may say something like, "The claim is flawed because Zobel assumes that Peterson's concepts are false from evidence that only establishes that her students' belief in the concepts is untrustworthy." Let's keep that in mind as we assess the answer choices.