Mr. Klemke argues that the complaints

Answer choices

1. A

   Not Reverse Causality12% picked this

   takes a consequence of someone's being biased to be a cause

   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%
2. B

   Correct65% picked this

   concludes that a claim is false on the grounds that an inadequate argument has been

   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.

   65%
3. C

   Not Ad Hominem14% picked this

   rejects an argument on the grounds that the person who offered the

   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.

   14%
4. D

   Not Sampling2% picked this

   relies on a sample of opinions that is unlikely to represent

   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%
5. E

   Not an Objection7% picked this

   overlooks the possibility that people whose views diverge are unaware of

   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%