Logical Reasoning

PT108 · S2 · Q21 The experts who now assure

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

The experts who now assure us that genetically engineered plants are harmless are the same experts who claimed that introducing non-native plants into the wild was a good idea.

Conclusion (we should conclude)

Genetically engineered plants will also be harmful.

Evidence

The experts who assure us that genetically engineered plants are harmless are the same who said that introducing non-native plants into the wild was a good idea (it wasn't / some of them have become a serious problem).

Evaluate

This argument is essentially saying, .

It's a flavor of the famous Ad Hominem flaw, where we dismiss a point of view because the source of that view has some ulterior motive / vested interest, or because the source of that view has some conflicting past behavior. This argument is an example of the latter.

Goal

We're looking for an argument that is saying Prem 1: The people saying X are the same people who previously said Y. Prem 2: Y turned out to be wrong. Conc: X will turn out to be wrong.

21.

The flawed reasoning in which one of the following most closely parallels the flawed reasoning in the argument above?

  1. The same people who complain

    Bad Evidence Match

    We have "the same people who say X are the ones who say Y", which is a weak match for, "The same people who say X are the ones who previously said Y". But more importantly, there's no premise saying, "Y ended up being wrong."

    2% picked this

  2. The film critics who called

    Weak Evidence/Conclusion Match

    We have "the same people who said X are the ones who now say Y", which is a good match for our first premise. Do we have a premise saying, "They were wrong about X" and a conclusion saying, "So they'll be wrong about Y?" No. We have a premise saying, "They were right about X (they said the last film was brilliant and it was excellent), so I think they'll be wrong about Y (they said the new film will suck but I think it will be good)."

    17% picked this

  3. Correct

    The economists who tell us

    Why this is right

    We can match everything up here with the original. Prem 1: The people saying X are the same people who previously said Y. Those now saying "current expansion will soon be ending" are the same ones who said "recession isn't ending yet". Prem 2: Y turned out to be wrong. The recession did end. They failed to predict its end. Conc: X will turn out to be wrong. The current expansion is not ending. It will continue for some time. Notice how the two premises are sort of enfolded into the same fact. Correct answers like to play that trick to disguise their similarity. Whereas the original said, "They assured us non-native would be harmless. Now we know that some have become a serious problem.", this answer accomplishes the same feel of They Were Wrong in the Past a different way, saying, "they failed to predict the end of the last recession". It's akin to the original argument conveying what it says in the first two sentences by saying, "The experts who now assure us that genetically engineered plants are harmless are the same experts who failed to anticipate that non-native plants would become a serious problem."

    Skill tested: Parallel Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    75% picked this

  4. Children who beg and plead

    Bad Evidence Match

    We hear that the kids begging this year are the same as the kids who begged last year, but we aren't ever told that in the previous instance the kids were wrong to beg.

    3% picked this

  5. The population experts who are

    Bad Conclusion Match

    The evidence works great. The conclusion should be saying that their current prediction is wrong (since their old prediction was wrong). Their current prediction is that there will be food shortages in the next decade, so the conclusion should sound like: Thus, we won't be seeing any food shortages in the next decade. Instead, it's a conditional statement and it involves the funky concept of the food shortage being caused by the prediction itself.

    4% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free