PrepTest 155
[lcid:3717] Prep Test 155 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S2
Logical reasoning
Question prompt
Psychologist: Specialists naturally tend
Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right
Credited answer: E
The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.
Question Type
Errors in Reasoning Questions
Answer choices
-
Ageneralizes about all specialists Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice A is not credited
Incorrect. The conclusion is about a specific type of specialist based on a premise that is a generalization. If anything, this answer reflects the reverse of the stimulus. -
Bpresumes that the traditional Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice B is not credited
Incorrect. While the argument does present a traditional view that the author seems to side with, the reason given isn't that it's the traditional view. Rather, the opposing view is dismissed because of the self-interested nature of the claim. -
Cdraws a conclusion that Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice C is not credited
The conclusion is about justified skepticism, but none of the premises are about skepticism. For this circular reasoning answer to be correct, the premise and conclusion must be conceptually identical. -
Dappeals to the authority Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice D is not credited
The argument deals with the opinion of geneticists on genetically determined traits. That's their area of expertise, so this answer is wrong. -
Edisputes a claim on Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice E matches the stem
Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument
Valid or Flawed:
Flawed
Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning
Stimulus Summary:
Specialists tend to view their specialty as particularly important. Geneticists claim that genetics explains most traits. In doing so, they're probably just hyping themselves up, so we are justified in being skeptical of them.
Answer Anticipation:
There are two potential issues here. First, it's possible that geneticists are different than the average specialist. However, that's less likely to lead to a correct answer because the conclusion is just that we're justified in any skepticism, not that the geneticists are playing their importance up.
Second, the psychologist calls the geneticists motivation into question. She doesn't provide any reasons for being skeptical of geneticists other than they're probably increasing their own sense of importance. This is an ad hominem attack, claiming bad motives is the same as being wrong.
Answer Explanation:
This answer reflects the ad hominem, questioning of motives error in reasoning from the stimulus. The author discards the geneticists' view because it's self-interested, instead of because of evidence that it's wrong.
Key Takeaway:
Whenever motives are discussed in argument, there's a good chance that they're related to the correct answer, so pay attention!
What this tests
Discussion
No threads yet—be the first to ask a question or share an approach.