Logical Reasoning

PT155 · S1 · Q20 Mr. Klemke argues that the complaints

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

Mr. Klemke argues that the complaints recently lodged against his roofing company are unfounded, on the grounds that each of the complainants disagrees with Klemke's widely known political views and is therefore biased.

Conclusion (Clearly, then)

The complaints are not unfounded. rephrase: There is legit reason to believe the complaints.

Evidence

Klemke says that the complainants disagree with his widely known political views and they are therefore biased.

But having different politics is still compatible with being badly treated by his company (different politics in no way prevents you from being badly treated).

Evaluate

Whenever we're doing Flaw and we see a Rebuttal style argument, we want to look for the two Top 10 Famous Flaws that deal with rebuttals: 1. Ad Hominem (dismissing someone's view because the source is biased or because the source has conflicting past behavior)

2. Unproven vs. Proven False (explaining why one person's attempt to prove X fails, but then illicitly concluding that this shows that X is false)

#1 is actually what Klemke is doing. He's committing an Ad Hominem flaw by dismissing the views of the complainants simply because they are a biased source (they don't like his politics).

Our author points out to Klemke that this is a flawed argument. You can't ignore complaints about your roofing company just because the source of the complaints is biased. That's a flawed / inadequate argument.

But #2 does seem to be what the author is doing. The easiest way to spot Unproven vs. Proven False is to notice that the author's conclusion is the complete opposite of the opponent's conclusion.

For example: Sheila thinks 5G networks cause cancer, but the research paper she found to support that judgment turns out to be forged by a conspiracy theorist. Therefore, 5G networks do not cause cancer.

The correct, responsible conclusion to draw when someone makes an unsuccessful argument in favor of X is that, "We don't currently know whether X is true." After all, how does this author know that 5G networks don't cause cancer? Does he have evidence to support that claim?

Goal

In this argument, Klemke was alleging that "these complaints are unfounded". The author explains to us why Klemke's support for that allegation was flawed and inadequate.

But the author isn't allowed to go to the opposite side of the spectrum and say, "Clearly, then the complaints are well founded".

You can't say,

Let's look for something describing the illegal Unproven vs. Proven False move, or pointing out that even though Klemke's reason for rejecting the complaints was a bogus one, there still might be a legitimate reason to reject the complaints.

20.

The argument against Mr. Klemke's allegation is flawed in that it

  1. takes a consequence of someone's

    Not Reverse Causality

    This answer is saying that our author took the consequence/effect of something to be the cause of something. The nickname for that concept is Reverse Causality. An author might see a correlation between X and Y and conclude that X causes Y, while failing to consider that Y really caused X. In such an argument, we could say that the author "took a consequence of Y to be a cause of Y". But nothing in this argument has anything to do with causality, so this does not match anything.

    12% picked this

  2. Correct

    concludes that a claim is

    Why this is right

    This describes the famous Unproven vs. Proven False flaw. On earlier LSAT's, this flaw was easier to spot: "No one has ever proven that cell phones cause cancer. Thus, cell phones don't cause cancer". And the answer would say "Confuses an absence of evidence with evidence of absence". But on more modern tests, instead of saying "there's a lack of evidence for X", they like to do, "Someone made a crappy argument in favor of X". Their argument for X rested on a dubious assumption, or in this case made some illegal Ad Hominem move. But just because their reasoning was too faulty to prove X doesn't mean we have any grounds for assuming X is false. If we weren't familiar with this Top 10 famous flaw, then we would simply look at the form of this answer, Concludes X on the grounds that Y, and try to match X to the conclusion and Y to the evidence. Did the author conclude that a claim is false? Yes, "Mr. Klemke's allegation that the complaints are unfounded is false." Was the evidence talking about an inadequate argument being offered for the claim that the complaints are unfounded? Yes, it told us about how Klemke unsuccessfully tried to prove that the complaints were unfounded by pointing to political bias on the part of the complainants. Since everything matches, and since it describes an objectionable move, we can pick it.

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

    66% picked this

  3. rejects an argument on the

    Not Ad Hominem

    This answer describes the top 10 famous flaw, Ad Hominem, in which an author dismisses a point of view because the source is biased or has conflicting past behavior. Our author is trying to dismiss Klemke's view. Does she do so by citing a premise that "Klemke is biased?" No. Klemke committed this flaw in how he reasoned about the complainants. Our author didn't commit this flaw.

    13% picked this

  4. relies on a sample of

    Not Sampling

    This refers to the top 10 famous flaw Sampling, in which an argument relies on a sample of data points that we have reason to believe is too small, self-selecting, unrepresentative, biased, or otherwise problematic. This argument doesn't rely on a sample at all. Our author attempts to prove that Klemke's allegation is wrong by discussing Klemke's flawed way of dismissing the complaints.

    2% picked this

  5. overlooks the possibility that people

    Not an Objection

    When a Flaw answer choice starts with fails to consider / overlooks the possibility, we can ask ourselves whether the idea that follows would potentially weaken the argument. Could we say, "Hey, author -- the complaints are unfounded. After all, people whose views diverge are unaware of their disagreement." That doesn't feel like it makes any sense. The complainants have view that widely diverge from Klemke's political views. Do we know or care whether the complainants are aware of that disagreement? We don't know and we don't care. That has more to do with Klemke's argument, whereas we're here to critique this author who is saying, "Since Klemke's reason for dismissing the complaints as unfounded was a dumb reason, the complaints must be well founded."

    7% 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