Logical Reasoning

PT138 · S3 · Q21 Professor Riley characterized

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

Professor Riley characterized the university president's speech as inflammatory and argued that it was therefore inappropriate.

Conclusion

If there aren't other ways to tell if the speech was inflammatory, then the speech was appropriate.

Evidence

Riley said the president's speech was inflammatory, and therefore inappropriate, but Riley's testimony has to be taken with a grain of salt, since he's had a long standing feud with the president.

Evaluate

This has two conclusions. There is an intermediate conclusion signified by "so", that

Do we have to accept that move? Not really. Someone could have a feud with X, but be scrupulously honest and not easily offended, in which case we might still trust their testimony that a certain speech was inflammatory.

But the main conclusion is signified by "Therefore". Since the author is saying "it's not true that the speech was inappropriate", she's concluding that "the speech was appropriate". What is her evidence it was appropriate?

Oh, wait. She doesn't have any positive evidence it was appropriate. She only has negative evidence rejecting Riley's argument that it was inappropriate.

This is a famous flaw called Unproven vs. Proven False. Shooting down an argument for Claim X doesn't mean that you've proven Claim X is false.

Goal

Look for an answer complaining about the the author's inability to trust Riley's testimony, given his feud with the president, or for an answer pointing out that the author went from saying

21.

The argument is flawed in that it

  1. Correct

    takes for granted that the

    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.

    54% picked this

  2. fails to adequately address the

    Wrong Argument

    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% picked this

  3. favors the university president's side

    Out of Scope: favors president's side

    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.

    1% picked this

  4. concludes that Riley's claim is

    Too Strong

    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% picked this

  5. fails to adequately address the

    Out of Scope: well founded animosity

    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.

    14% 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