Logical Reasoning

PT155 · S2 · Q11 Psychologist: Specialists naturally tend

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

Psychologist: Specialists naturally tend to view their own specialties as fundamentally important.

Conclusion (therefore)

We're right to be skeptical when geneticists claim that personality traits, historically thought to not be genetically determined, are genetically determined.

Evidence

Specialists naturally tend to view their own specialties as fundamentally important, and so geneticists (in proclaiming that even these personality traits are genetically determined) are probably just amplifying their sense of their own importance.

Evaluate

Whenever we're doing Flaw questions, we have a special ear for the 10 famous flaws, in particular the five most common (Necessary vs. Sufficient, Causal, Part vs. Whole, Unproven vs. Proven False, and Ad Hominem).

This argument feels a bit like Ad Hominem, like we're shooting down someone's claims because of who they are, not what they said. Typically, authors who commit this flaw are saying,

This author isn't dismissively saying "don't listen to them", but she is coming pretty close to that by saying, "we are very justified in being skeptical".

Goal

Look for an answer saying,

11.

The reasoning in the psychologist's argument is flawed in that this argument

  1. generalizes about all specialists on

    Wrong Flaw: not Sampling

    This refers to one of the other famous flaws, Sampling. According to this answer choice, the Conclusion is a generalization about all specialists, and the Evidence is some unrepresentative sample of specialists. Can we match that up? No, the conclusion is not a generalization about all specialists. It's a claim specifically about geneticists, and only those geneticists who claim a certain thing.

    4% picked this

  2. presumes that the traditional view

    Too Strong

    Too Strong: must be Bad Conclusion Match Any flaw answer choice saying presumes that X simply because Y is saying that X is the Conclusion (or needed to draw the conclusion) and Y is the Evidence. Did this author conclude that "the traditional view must be true" / "these personality traits are definitely not genetically determined"? Nope, it was "we are justified in being skeptical when geneticists tell us that they are genetically determined". That is much squishier than "traditional must be right". We always want to be wary of strong language when we're reading Necessary Assumption answers on Flaw, answers that begin with these phrases: takes for granted / presumes / fails to establish

    2% picked this

  3. draws a conclusion that is

    Wrong Flaw: not Circular

    This refers to one of the other famous flaws, Circular reasoning. According to this answer choice, the Conclusion restates a premise. The conclusion was "we are correct to be skeptical when geneticists claim that personality traits are genetically determined". Was there a premise that also said that? Not even close. The two premises said: - specialists then to view their specialties as crucial - geneticists are probably amplifying their sense of importance

    6% picked this

  4. appeals to the authority of

    Wrong Flaw: not Inappropriate Appeal

    This refers to one of the other famous flaws, Inappropriate Appeals. This flaw is when an author's entire evidence is either someone's opinion ("Tommy says global warming is fake, so it must be fake") or is an appeal to fear/emotion rather than logic, ("Tommy says he'll be demoralized if we're squandering our last chance to abate the worst effects of climate change. Thus, we're not squandering our last chance.") Our author here doesn't appeal to authority for support. In fact, his whole argument is designed at casting doubt on authority.

    1% picked this

  5. Correct

    disputes a claim on the

    Why this is right

    This describes the famous Ad Hominem flaw. Does our author dispute a claim? Sure, he says, "We are very justified in being skeptical when geneticists claim X." Is the basis of his rebuttal (his evidence) talking about the supposed motive for making the claim? Sure, he says "the geneticists are probably just amplifying their sense of their own important." Is it a flaw that the author is disputing based on someone's motive for saying something rather than by assessing the relevant evidence? Yes! The former is Twitter and the latter is logical reasoning.

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

    88% 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