Taylor: From observing close friends

Answer choices

1. A

   Wrong Flaw23% picked this

   is based on too small a sample to yield a

   This refers to the famous Sampling Flaw, and we would definitely say that a sample of "close friends and relatives" is too small and not representative. But it's only a sampling flaw if the conclusion tries to extrapolate that what was true of them is true of others. This conclusion is just asserting that something is possible. If I see my close friend Trisha eat a bucket full of crickets while skateboarding, I'm allowed to conclude "It is clear to me that eating a bucket full of crickets is indeed possible while riding on a skateboard." That conclusion doesn't assume that Trisha's cricket-eating capacities are representative, because to prove that something is possible you only have to establish that it's happened (or could happen) at least once.

   23%
2. B

   Correct56% picked this

   fails to address a highly plausible alternative explanation for all instances of

   Why this is right

   This resembles the most common type of Flaw correct answer for a Causal flaw: failure to consider alternate explanations. The obnoxious twist of this one is that they throw out the "highly plausible alternative", which has a lot of specificity to it. This underscores the need to think through our Objections to these arguments ahead of time, and not totally rely on the answers to provoke the right thinking in our head (though, sometimes we definitely need to use them for possible objections when we can't think of one on our own). If we posed to ourselves the question of "how else could we explain knowing what a close friend or family member is thinking?", then we probably all had the intuitive reaction of "maybe you just know them so well that you kind of know how they react to certain things or what they'd say about certain things". LSAT is saying, "Yeah! That one. That's the highly plausible alternative explanation. Instead of positing a completely new ability level (telepathy) that is the stuff of science fiction or the afterlife, try explaining this in more humble ways, with what you already know."

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

   56%
3. C

   Wrong Flaw3% picked this

   relies crucially on an illegitimate appeal

   This describes the famous Inappropriate Appeal (to Emotion / Opinion / Authority). There's no emotional appeal in here. An emotional appeal is something like, "I know he's not a citizen here. But please don't deport him; his newfound friends will be so sad to lose him."

   3%
4. D

   Illegal Opposite5% picked this

   presumes, without providing justification, that one can never know what a stranger is

   LSAT was doing this illegal opposite thing way before the Culture War started doing it in response to Black Lives Matter ("Oh, so non-black lives don't matter?"). I can say "blond women are beautiful", and that doesn't mean I believe "brunette women aren't beautiful". I can say "land wars are a waste of human life", and that doesn't mean I believe "naval wars are not a waste of human life". The author said "telepathy is possible between people w/ close psychic ties". That doesn't mean she believes that telepathy is impossible between people without close ties. The author said "you can frequently know what a close friend or family member is thinking". That doesn't mean she believes that "you can never know what a stranger is thinking or feeling".

   5%
5. E

   Wrong Flaw13% picked this

   appeals to a premise one would accept only if one already accepted the truth

   This describes the famous Circular Reasoning flaw, which is almost always wrong. We accepted the premise (it can't just be a coincidence how frequently you know what a close friend or family member is thinking) even though we don't yet accept the truth of the conclusion (telepathy is possible). So this answer is contradicting our own reaction to this argument.

   13%