PrepTest 158

This student draws a conclusion about the professor's stated criteria, so any discussion of those criteria is appropriate. Further, the student never claims the paper lacks shortcomings, so the argument is not an attempt to deflect from the paper's flaws.

This answer choice mischaracterize's the argument's conclusion. The argument's conclusion is factual, not evaluative. Evaluative conclusions are about an entity's worth, value, merit, etc. Whether the professor correctly applied her guidelines can be established without making an "evaluation" about the professor or the guidelines.

(There's a long history of philosophical debate on whether it's fallacious to draw evaluative conclusions from factual premises — shout out David Hume — but we don't need to unpack that to eliminate this answer choice.)

Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
This student claims that the professor did not follow the professor's own rules when grading the student's paper. The professor said that she'd give As only to papers supported by reliable stats. The professor admitted that the paper was supported with reliable stats but gave the paper a B anyway.

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:
   1. 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, if there's a conditional keyword prominently featured in an argument's premises or conclusion, an expert LSATer will surmise that the flaw is probably a Sufficient/Necessary flaw. But, they may also want to jot down a quick diagram to make sure.

In this case, the student uses the term "only" when relating the professor's grading criterion: "Only" papers with reliable stats get As. Since "only" refers to necessary conditions, we can diagram this claim as:

1. A → Reliable Stats

Both the student and professor agree there were reliable stats in the student's paper. But the student says the B grade was unfair and contrary to the professor's criterion. In other words, the student assumes that because the paper featured reliable stats, it deserved an A.

That suggests the student misinterpreted the above conditional statement. The student thinks that a paper with reliable stats will necessarily earn an A, when the converse is, in fact, true: papers that are given an A necessarily feature reliable stats. Expect the correct answer to discuss the student mistaking a necessary condition for a sufficient one.

Answer Choice Explanation:
This answer choice accurately describes the Sufficient/Necessary flaw in the student's argument. The "condition" that's a "requirement" for an A is the presence of reliable stats in the paper. The student implies the paper unfairly received a B despite featuring reliable stats, which means the student mistakenly believes that the reliable stats are enough to guarantee the A.

Key Takeaway:
Alert test-takers read Errors in Reasoning arguments like detectives — looking for clues and traces of one of the common fallacies. The presence of conditional keywords is generally tell-tale evidence of a Sufficient/Necessary flaw.

The student may be a biased participant in this so-called controversy, but that doesn't render the premises or conclusion inherently flawed. Especially when the central premise — the paper's use of reliable stats — is verified by the teacher. In fact, it would actually be a flaw to assume that because the student has a vested interest, the argument is without merit.

This answer choice, like (A), misconstrues the student's conclusion. The student's argument is about the professor's criteria. It's not about the objective quality of the paper. Because the argument is focused only on the professor's criteria, there's no need to distinguish it from "objective criteria of a paper's quality."