Professor Riley characterized

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct53% picked this

   takes for granted that the speech could not be inappropriate if it

   Why this is right

   This is accusing the author of making a conditional assumption. Let's look at the conditional and ask ourselves whether the author did in fact make that move: if the speech wasn't inflammatory, it wasn't inappropriate Yes, that seems to match. The author is saying, "Riley's claim that it was inflammatory can't be trusted on its own, so if we don't have any other evidence it was inflammatory, then we can't conclude inflammatory, and therefore we CAN conclude appropriate." Our author is failing to consider that even if the speech weren't inflammatory, it could still be inappropriate for some other reason (maybe it contained a lot of lies or mistruths). This answer is a veiled nod to the Unproven vs. Proven False flaw: the author is acting like "as long as I reject YOUR argument for why the speech was inappropriate, then I've proven it was appropriate", and LSAT is saying "hey, buddy, the speech could still be inappropriate. It's too soon to conclude that."

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

   53%
2. B

   Wrong Argument3% picked this

   fails to adequately address the possibility that inflammatory speeches may be appropriate

   This would be a Flaw with Riley's argument core. He said "speech was inflammatory and therefore inappropriate", so this answer would call out his questionable assumption that "inflammatory ? inappropriate".

   3%
3. C

   Out of Scope: favors president's side2% picked this

   favors the university president's side in a dispute simply because of the

   The author never takes the president's side. She simply points out that since Riley and the president have a long-standing feud, their statements about each other may be unduly tainted by that feud. If the president had said something about Riley, this author would have presumably rejected the president's remarks for the same reason.

   2%
4. D

   Too Strong27% picked this

   concludes that Riley's claim is false merely on the grounds that Riley has something to gain if the

   Too Strong: false Out of Scope: something to gain This answer is very tempting, because the Ad Hominem feel of "Since they have a feud, we can't trust Riley's claim" feels a lot like this answer. But the author doesn't full-on conclude Riley's accusation (that the speech was inflammatory) was false. In fact, she's leaving open the possibility that it's true by saying, "unless we find independent reasons for thinking the speech was inflammatory ...". She is still open to the possibility that the claim is true, so she hasn't yet concluded that it's false. Also, it's a little murky whether Riley "has something to gain" if people accept it as true that the president's speech was inflammatory. We might think, "well since they're in a feud, Riley has cheap, sadistic pleasure to gain in getting people to accept a negative truth about the president's speech." That's a more petty sense of "something to gain" than I think LSAT would use.

   27%
5. E

   Out of Scope: well founded animosity15% picked this

   fails to adequately address the possibility that Riley's animosity toward the university president

   No part of the argument is concerned with whether Riley or the president is right/wrong in their feud. It's only brought up as a way to say that Riley's testimony isn't the strongest leg to stand on.

   15%