PrepTest 158

Lindsey doesn't rely on the opinions of certain unnamed people when making this argument. If Lindsey relied on the opinions of "several people," Lindsey would have used their opinions to justify the conclusion. But Lindsey doesn't agree with their opinions. Several people think the company acted unfairly, but Lindsey doesn't think the company acted unfairly at all!

More generally, it's only a flaw to rely on people's opinions without establishing that they're "well informed on the matter" if you're using their opinions to prove a factual matter (e.g., "John believes Coke is the most popular soft drink, so Coke must sell more soda annually than any other soft drink") or when they're clearly speaking outside their area of expertise (e.g., "John is a doctor, so we can trust his opinions on pop music"). This conclusion doesn't express a factual matter, and we don't have a strong reason to believe these people are uninformed about the company's policies. After all, Lindsey concedes that these people might recall one of the company's policies! Clearly, they are at least somewhat informed on the matter at hand.

Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Passage Summary:
According to several people, the company unfairly denied bonuses. These people may recall that the company said if this year's profits were bigger than last year's, it would give out bonuses. The company's profit this year was smaller than last year's. So, the company acted fairly.

Strategy Overview:

1. Argument or facts? Always argument, so identify premises and conclusions of argument
2. Anticipate why the premises are not enough to prove that the conclusion is true. 
1. Checking to see if a common logical fallacy is committed is very helpful.
3. Use anticipations to select the answer choice that:
4. Accurately describes the reason why the premises are not enough to prove that the conclusion is true

Answer Anticipation:
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. To help organize our thought process, we can think about the common flaws that arguments commit over and over again.

Many test-takers find this reasoning persuasive. It makes some sense! The company said if this year's profits were bigger than last year's, it would give out bonuses. But that didn't happen. So, the company wasn't unfair when it refused to dole out bonuses.

But before we become too enamored with this reasoning, let's try to poke some holes in it. Carefully reading the argument can reveal some clues about Lindsey's flawed reasoning. Notice how Lindsey said, "Perhaps they recalled," before describing the company's promise that it would give out bonuses if this year's profits were bigger than last year's. Perhaps the people accusing the company of being unfair recalled that promise. Or, perhaps, they recalled another promise the company made?

After all, Lindsey never says that this was the company's only promise to pay out bonuses. Maybe the company promised annual bonuses in the contracts of many staff members. Maybe the company promised it would pay out bonuses if staff members reached certain performance goals. Who knows! The point is, Lindsey discounts only one reason the staff were entitled to bonuses. But there could be other reasons the staff were entitled to bonuses! If the company denied bonuses despite those reasons, the company would have acted unfairly.

(If you're into the taxonomy of common LSAT flaws, we can call this one an absence of evidence flaw. Showing that one's premise is false doesn't prove that one's conclusion is false.)

The correct answer choice will almost certainly describe this flaw, so let's keep it in mind as we assess the answer choices.

Answer Choice Explanation:
This answer choice describes the error in Lindsey's reasoning. Lindsey infers that an opinion is false — several people's opinion that the company acted unfairly by refusing bonuses — merely because Lindsey undermines one potential reason for that opinion — the company's promise that it would give out bonuses if this year's profits were bigger than last year's. As discussed above, there could be other reasons the staff were entitled to bonuses! If the company denied bonuses despite those reasons, the company would have acted unfairly. Lindsey ignores any other reason the company's staff may have earned a bonus. Since (B) describes this flaw, we can select it confidently.

Key Takeaway:
This kind of flaw appears regularly on Errors in Reasoning questions. Suppose someone argues, "Since X, Y." It's a flaw to assume that proving that X isn't true or that X is irrelevant will also prove that Y isn't true. Suppose the argument was, "Since I just did one jumping jack and feel fantastic, exercising must be a healthy habit." Of course, we could prove that doing one jumping jack and feeling fantastic isn't relevant to the conclusion. But that wouldn't mean that this conclusion is false. Exercising can be a healthy habit, even if we can undermine one reason it may be healthy. Similarly, the company in this passage may have acted unfairly, even if Lindsey undermined one reason why the company acted unfairly.

Lindsey doesn't dismiss several people's opinions based on their "irrelevant attributes." Lindsey doesn't bring up any attributes these people possess! Because this answer choice mischaracterizes Lindsey's reasoning, it cannot accurately describe a flaw in Lindsey's argument.

This is a confusing answer choice! Sometimes, it's best to provide an example of what this flaw might look like so we can compare the passage's argument to an argument that actually commits the flaw described by this answer choice.

Suppose the argument said this: "Lindsey: Several people claim that our company was unfair when it failed to give bonuses to the staff. Perhaps they recalled that the company had promised that if it increased its profits over last year's, the staff would all get bonuses. However, the company's profit wasfairly small this year. Clearly, then, the company acted fairly."

In this version of the argument, Lindsey confuses the size of a quantity (the company's profits) with the amount the quantity has increased (whether this year's profits increased over last year's). The company promised to give out bonuses if the annual profit increased this year. Even if this year's profits were "fairly small," they still could have increased over last year's profits, and the staff could still be entitled to a bonus.

However, in the real argument from the passage, Lindsey doesn't confuse the size of the company's profits with the amount the profits increased. Lindsey doesn't say that the profits were "small" this year. Lindsey establishes that the profits did not increase this year ("the company's profit was much smaller this year than it was last year"). So, this answer choice does not accurately describe an error in Lindsey's reasoning.

When we see "overlooks the possibility" on an Errors in Reasoning answer choice, the question we should ask ourselves is, "Would this weaken the conclusion if true?" If a policy can be fair even if it's not generous, that would strengthen Lindsey's reasoning. Denying bonuses to your staff isn't very generous, but this answer choice would support Lindsey's conclusion that the company's decision was fair. It's not a flaw to overlook information that further supports your argument!