Journalist: A book claiming

Answer choices

1. A

   Not an Objection1% picked this

   It fails to address adequately the possibility that the critique of the book called into question other claims made in the book in addition

   The conclusion is only saying "this physician's critique is not a reason to reject this book's claim about side effects." If the physician critiqued stuff unrelated to side effects, then those parts of the critique would also not be a reason to reject this book's claim about side effects. If those parts aren't even about the drug's side effects, then how could they be a reason to reject a book's claim about the drug's side effects?

   1%
2. B

   Trap15% picked this

   It takes for granted that anyone even remotely associated with a company that manufactures a drug is unable to fairly weigh evidence concerning possible

   Not Being Assumed Too Strong: anyone even remotely A physician at a drug company is a fairly important employee, one would think. This employee might even be high enough to own stock options in the drug company, and thus have motive to hide the new drug's bad side effects. But a mailman who brings the drug company its mail every day is someone "even remotely associated with" the drug company, and the author isn't necessarily assuming someone as distantly affiliated as the mailman would also have "personal reasons" to deny bad press for the drug company.

   15%
3. C

   Not as Good an Objection2% picked this

   It overlooks the possibility that the author of the book was biased for personal reasons in favor of the claim that the

   If the book's author was also biased in favor of its point of view (as the author accuses the physician of being), that does feel like it would destabilize the argument. But this is definitely not the issue that LSAC expects us to catch in the paragraph. The fact that the author is invalidating the physician's critique just because of probable vested interest is the headline.

   2%
4. D

   Correct81% picked this

   It fails to address adequately the possibility that someone who has personal reasons to deny a claim may nonetheless provide legitimate

   Why this is right

   This describes the underlying reason that Ad Hominem is a flaw. - Just because a person has a biased interest is X being true, doesn't mean X isn't true. It might nonetheless be a true statement. or - Just because a person has said or done something in the past that goes against X, doesn't mean we shouldn't listen to them now when they're telling us X is true. This answer is just saying that our author fails to consider that even if the physician has personal reasons for wanting to deny the book's claims about the drug, it's still possible that the physician is correct and the book is wrong.

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

   81%
5. E

   Even If-Conclusion2% picked this

   It overlooks the possibility that even if a critique does not provide legitimate grounds to reject a claim, this failure need not be the

   It's always wrong to say "Even if the Conclusion is true, ..." If you were defending someone on murder charges and were like, "Your Honor, even if my client committed murder, he didn't rob any banks", that would not work well. Our whole job is to resist drawing the conclusion that the author drew. Saying "even if she's right about her conclusion" means you've instantly conceded victory to her argument.

   2%