Logical Reasoning

PT145 · S4 · Q12 Several movie critics have claimed

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

Several movie critics have claimed that this movie will inspire people to act in socially irresponsible ways, yet this claim relies entirely on survey data that have turned out to be deeply flawed.

Conclusion

The claim that this movie will inspire people to act in socially irresponsible ways is untrue and potentially harmful to the moviemaker's reputations.

Evidence

The claim relies entirely on survey data that has turned out to be deeply flawed.

Evaluate

This one would be tough to get if we don't know our famous flaws.

If an author is saying, , or in this case , then what is the valid conclusion and what is the flawed conclusion?

The valid conclusion to reach is: okay, so we still don't know whether X is true.

The flawed conclusion that LSAT authors go to is this: okay, so now we know that X is false.

We call this flaw Unproven vs. Proven False (other companies sometimes call it stuff like Absence of Evidence).

The movie critics have not successfully proven claim X (that the movie will inspire dangerous behavior). But that doesn't mean that claim X is untrue.

Goal

Look for an answer saying .

12.

The argument is flawed in that it

  1. Correct

    infers that a claim is

    Why this is right

    Even if we weren't aware of the Unproven vs. Proven False famous flaw, we can test whether this answer is valid by trying to match up its parts. The thing being inferred is the conclusion (or in rare cases, an assumption). The grounds on which we infer something is the evidence. Is the author's conclusion saying that a claim is false? Yes, it says "these critics have made a claim that is untrue" Is the premise saying that no good evidence has been offered? Yes, it says "this claim relies entirely on data that turned out to be badly flawed" If we can match the abstract description to the argument, then it's a correct answer.

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

    82% picked this

  2. fails to consider that a

    Trap

    Not an Objection Relative vs. Absolute: more harmful First, some vocab: "pejorative" means insulting or derogatory. When I say "my friend Paul is gay", that's not a pejorative sense of 'gay'. When people (twenty years ago) would say "oh, I don't like chess. I just think it's kinda gay." That's using 'gay' as a pejorative, which we thankfully don't or shouldn't do anymore. Was their a pejorative claim in this argument? Not really. Would it be an objection to say that an insulting claim can be more harmful to reputation than a false claim? Not at all. "Reputational harm" is tacked onto the conclusion for no reason other than creating trap answers. The author's evidence doesn't try to support that this claim is potentially harmful to reputations. Even if it were a meaningful part of the conclusion, the author is only claiming that the claim is potentially harmful, not more harmful than other things. If I conclude that "eating cheeseburgers every day is bad for your health", you can't object to my conclusion by saying, "you fail to consider that smoking two packs of cigarettes every day is even worse for your health".

    4% picked this

  3. relies on a sample that

    Wrong Flaw

    This refers to the famous flaw Sampling, and since it says "flawed survey data" within the paragraph, students might pick this just thinking maybe we were doing a sampling flaw. But the author is pointing out that her opponents relied on a bad sample; she's not relying on a sample.

    2% picked this

  4. attacks the persons making an

    Wrong Flaw

    This refers to the famous Ad Hominem flaw, in which you invalidate someone's argument by saying that they had an ulterior motive biasing them or that they have conflicting past behavior that makes it hard to believe their present claims. In doing so, Ad Hominem authors are failing to actually confront their opponents' arguments -- they don't engage with the evidence their opponents are putting forward. That's definitely not a match for what's going on here, because our author is engaging with her opponent's evidence. She's saying, "since their evidence was flawed, their conclusion is false".

    2% picked this

  5. fails to consider that, even

    Reversed Parts

    The correct version of this would say fails to consider that, even if the evidence used to justify an argument's conclusion is flawed, the argument's conclusion may nonetheless be true.

    10% 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