PrepTest 147

Incorrect. The argument establishes that Weingarten "sees nothing wrong" with keeping pets, and his viewpoint would be enough to brand him as a bit of a hypocrite, so the argument doesn't need to assume that he actually has pets.

Incorrect. There's no generalization here from a single case. The author concludes a claim should be rejected based on a bad argument made for it, not that something is true/false generally because it's true/false in one instance.

Incorrect. There isn't a straw-man argument here—the author uses Weingarten's reasoning word-for-word. While Weingarten might have a distinction he'd follow up with, that's not a part of his argument and thus wouldn't be misrepresented.

Incorrect. Weingarten concludes that keeping animals in zoos is unethical because it involves keeping animals in unnatural habitats for human amusement. To reach that conclusion, he must believe that doing so is sufficient for something to be unethical. Therefore, the author doesn't treat a necessary condition as sufficient since Weingarten himself treats it as sufficient.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Weingarten Ð Zoos are wrong because they put animals in unnatural habitats for human amusement
Rebuttal Ð Weingarten thinks pets are fine, and pets are animals put in unnatural habitats for human amusement
Conclusion Ð Weingarten's claims should be rejected

Answer Anticipation:
Gotta love it when the LSAT uses someone's own argument against them! This is an example of a reductio ad absurdum, a common method of reasoning, but we're not asked to describe that! It's not a Methods of Reasoning question—it's an Errors in Reasoning question. While the author of this argument might point out a flaw in Weingarten's argument, our task is to point out one in her argument.

Here, the author does rebut Weingarten's claim. She uses his own argument against him to show that it's not a good argument. From there, she concludes that his claims "should be rejected."

However, that itself is a classic flaw! Weingarten's argument certainly has some issues, but that doesn't mean his claim—that keeping animals in zoos is unethical—is wrong. It could be unethical for reasons outside of the ones highlighted by Weingarten. When an author undermines an opposing point and concludes that their claim is false or should be rejected, they commit an absence of evidence flaw. Let's find the answer that points out the argument rejects a claim based on a bad argument being made for it.

(If you viewed this as an ad hominem attack, that's not exactly right, as the rebuttal deals with the argument instead of the person. However, if you viewed the rebuttal as pointing out hypocritical beliefs on the part of Weingarten, then you're in the right world and that is close to an ad hominem attack—you'd still get to the right answer!)

Answer Explanation:
This answer combines the absence of evidence flaw with the author's pointing out Weingarten's contradictory views. Just because someone holds such inconsistent views doesn't mean that they're both wrong.

Key Takeaway:
In an Errors in Reasoning question, if the author's conclusion is that the opposing point is wrong, or their claim is false/must be rejected, start thinking about an absence of evidence flaw. Successfully rebutting an opposing point allows the conclusion that they haven't made their point or that their claim might be wrong, not that it is.