Logical Reasoning

PT110 · S2 · Q1 In his new book on

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

In his new book on his complex scientific research, R frequently imputes bad faith to researchers disagreeing with him.

Conclusion (it is clear that)

R's book does not merit attention from serious professionals.

Evidence

R has often shown himself to be arrogant, overly ambitious, and sometimes plain nasty.

R frequently accuses other researchers of bad faith inquiries, saying that they basically distort their findings in order to appeal to whatever source it is from which they get their funding.

Evaluate

R's book has some pretty damning accusations of scientific research. Scientists are supposed to be concerned only with finding the truth; what does the objective world and empirical data have to say on this issue.

But according to R, the incentives provided by outside funding are distorting the scientific endeavor. He says that scientific investigators are often working backwards from the outcome they know their funding source wants.

Pretty provocative indictment of the current state of science. So why does this author think it doesn't merit attention from serious professionals?

Cuz R's kind of a dork. He's often arrogant / ambitious / nasty.

Okay, so what? We get that those behaviors are bad if you're trying to be friends with R, but we're just curious whether he's right about the corrosive nature of funding on science.

Goal

Whenever we're doing Flaw and we see a rebuttal style argument, we immediately think of the two Famous Flaws that relate to rebuttals:

- Ad Hominem (dismissing ideas without engaging with them, simply because the source of those ideas is sketchy, has an ulterior motive, or has some conflicting past behavior)

- Unproven vs. Proven False (concluding that X is false by showing that someone's attempt to prove X true was not successful)

This is definitely Ad Hominem. The author is dismissing R's ideas without engaging with them, because of personal aspects of R, which are irrelevant to the truth value of the ideas in his book.

1.

The author of the book review commits which one of the following reasoning errors?

  1. Correct

    using an attack on the

    Why this is right

    The structure "using X as evidence that Y" means that X should match the evidence as Y should match the conclusion. Did the evidence contain an attack on the character of the writer of the book? Yes, our author said that R is often arrogant, ambitious, and nasty. And she's definitely using this as evidence, because she prefaces this claim by saying "Add to this that [personal attack] and it becomes clear that [conclusion]." Is the conclusion saying that R isn't competent on matters of scientific substance? Not really, but once we get to the stage of picking "best available answer", we have to live with this. We're accepting "R's book doesn't merit attention from serious professionals" implies that "R isn't competent on matters of scientific substance". That's definitely a bit of a drift, but if we read this more conversationally, it's just saying, "The author uses a personal attack against R as evidence R's book is not accurately presenting important ideas about scientific research."

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

    91% picked this

  2. taking it for granted that

    Not Assumed

    The author's argument has absolutely nothing to do with whether investigators are likely to report findings that go against their funding sources. This answer choice seems to be expressing an assumption that R had while writing his book. Our author's argument is, "R's book doesn't merit attention from serious professionals, because R has often shown himself to be arrogant, overly ambitious, and plain nasty". The concepts of "investigators / funding sources" are totally nowhere to be found within our author's argument.

    3% picked this

  3. dismissing a scientific theory by

    Bad Evidence Match

    We wouldn't call R's book "a scientific theory", so the conclusion half of this answer is also wrong. But even if we said, "Dismissing a book on science by giving a biased account of it", we wouldn't be able to say that this author gave a biased account of R's book. She seemed to give a fair account of it, but then she unfairly told people to not read it given that R's character sucks.

    1% picked this

  4. presenting as facts several assertions

    Out of Scope: strong conviction

    The assertions the author makes about the book are in the first two sentences. We have no grounds for thinking that these assertions are based only on our author's strong conviction and would be impossible for others to verify. (Couldn't someone read R's book and verify whether the author's first two assertions are true or not?) This answer is alluding to a semi-famous flaw called Opinion vs. Fact. This answer is saying the author presented opinions/subjectivity as fact, which doesn't match up with anything here.

    2% picked this

  5. failing to distinguish between the

    Bad Evidence Match

    If an author had said, "The claims in R's book are true. Thus, R's book merits attention from serious professionals", then this answer choice would apply. Instead, the argument was, "The writer of this book is often arrogant, ambitious, and nasty. Thus this book does not merit attention from serious professionals."

    3% 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