Logical Reasoning

PT156 · S2 · Q11 Professor Williams: Professor Thomas's report

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

Professor Williams: Professor Thomas's report characterizes our colleague Professor York as too flamboyant and confrontational in the classroom.

Conclusion

Thomas isn't as charming/entertaining a speaker as he'd like to be, so he vents his frustrations by condemning others, such as York

Evidence

The argument in Thomas's report sounds like the classic argument of the self-serving academic.

Evaluate

What the hell is this dross, LSAC? I feel like we're listening to sneering gossip in the faculty lounge at Oxford.

We're doing Flaw, and we have a rebuttal argument, so the flaw is probably some illegal form of rebutting (Ad hom, Unproven vs. False, failing to address the argument, etc.)

The original position is that York is "too flamboyant and confrontational in the classroom".

Okay, how do we assess the truth of that claim? Do we have examples of behavior? Student testimony or student evals corroborating this characterization?

Our author doesn't in any way explore the validity of this claim. They try to eschew all discussion of it by just saying that Thomas is just butthurt over his lack of rizz. ( <-- we can retire that expression, now that it's appeared in an LSAT explanation.)

When author's wipe away someone's claim as a non-starter because of something about them, it's Ad Hominem. The author isn't evaluating the merits of the claim. He's just trying to disqualify the source from being a legitimate source of ideas.

Goal

Look for an answer describing an Ad Hominem move, where the rebuttal focuses on the source of an idea rather than the validity of the idea.

11.

Professor Williams's argument is flawed because it

  1. confuses the distinction between being

    Bad Description

    This answer makes it sound like the author said, "York isn't too confrontational. He's in his students faces, for sure, but it's more about engaging students by entertaining them." We had no such genuine defense of York's teaching. Our author never talked about York's teaching. She just said Thomas is too embittered to be taken seriously.

    2% picked this

  2. presupposes the point it is

    Circular Reasoning

    The conclusion, that Thomas is a frustrated entertainer venting at others, is not used as its own premise. Williams offers a separate observation, that the argument sounds self-serving, as the reason. That reason is weak, but it is distinct from the conclusion, so the reasoning does not circle back on itself.

    2% picked this

  3. mistakes Professor Thomas's characterization of

    Bad Description

    Thomas's report does endorse the view that York is too flamboyant and confrontational; it is Thomas's own characterization, not a summary of someone else's position. Williams is not mistaking a neutral description for an endorsement. Thomas definitely endorses his own view that York is a flamboyant arse in the classroom.

    2% picked this

  4. Correct

    attacks Professor Thomas personally rather

    Why this is right

    Thomas's argument is that York is too flamboyant and confrontational in the classroom. Williams responds with speculation about Thomas's frustrations and envy, and never addresses whether York's classroom conduct matches the description.

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

    91% picked this

  5. rejects the possibility that Professor

    Bad Description

    Williams never says York is not confrontational and never rules it out. The response simply fails to address the question. Not engaging with a possibility is different from rejecting it, and the flaw here is the failure to engage.

    2% 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