PrepTest 116

Incorrect. The argument doesn't deal in good reasons but rather in true/false premises. The Earth being in the middle of the universe would be a good reason to believe that people are important—it just doesn't happen to be true.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Old belief — The Earth is at the center of the universe, so people are important.

New knowledge — The Earth revolves around the sun in the middle of nowhere special.

Conclusion — People aren't important.

Answer Anticipation:
Well that's a downer in the middle of the LSAT!

The argument here brings up an argument based on an old belief. It then establishes that the old belief is wrong, and then concludes that the conclusion based on it must be false.

That type of conclusion—one stating that an opposing viewpoint is wrong/its conclusion is false—is common in Absence of Evidence flaws. This flawed method of reasoning involves invalidating a conclusion based on a faulty premise or logic. However, just because one premise used in one argument supporting that conclusion is false doesn't mean the conclusion is false.

For instance, if we said, Oranges are blue, so the Earth isn't flat, you'd rightfully call out that our premise is wrong. However, the conclusion is true—you can't throw it out just because our argument for it is bad!

Same thing here—just because the premise on which an earlier conclusion is based is wrong doesn't mean the conclusion is. Let's find an answer explaining that.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the Absence of Evidence flaw present in the stimulus. The statement believed for questionable reasons was that people are important. And while those reasons may be questionable in that they're not true, the conclusion could still be true for other, true reasons.

Key Takeaway:
When the main point of an argument is that the opposing point's conclusion is false/wrong, then there's a good chance that the argument is committing an Absence of Evidence flaw. Check to see if that determination is based on a flaw in the logic of the opposing point or, as here, in a claim that a premise is false. If that's what the author relies on, then you've found your flaw.

Incorrect. There absolutely can be a reason to disbelieve a true statement, and the stimulus deals with statements it believes to be false anyway.

Incorrect. The argument is over whether people are important, not whether they view themselves as so, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. Similar to (D), the argument is over whether people are important, not whether they view themselves as so, so this answer is out of scope.