Logical Reasoning

PT156 · S2 · Q5 Zobel: Peterson's analytic concepts

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

Zobel: Peterson's analytic concepts are wrong and should be rejected.

Conclusion

Zobel claims Peterson's analytic concepts are wrong and should be rejected.

Intermediate Conclusion (thus)

It's impossible for a student to make unbiased judgments about the value of the teacher's analytic concepts.

Evidence

The teacher interprets the actions, dreams, and fantasies of the student in analytic terms, which leads to strong emotional bonds with the teacher that predispose the student to accept the teacher's analytic concepts.

Evaluate

The evidence is about Peterson's students, that they are biased in their assessments. That tells us nothing about whether Peterson's concepts are themselves wrong. Even if every one of her students is hopelessly biased, her concepts could still be correct.

This is an Unproven vs. Proven False type argument. Zobel is basically showing how the students' faith in Peterson is a faulty way of proving Peterson right (they're too biased to be trusted). But that doesn't mean that Zobel has proven Peterson wrong.

Goal

Look for an answer saying that Zobel has only established that we should be suspicious of students who say (because of bias) that Peterson's concepts are correct, but has provided no evidence to make us think that Peterson's concepts are wrong.

5.

Based on the information in the passage, which one of the following is the most accurate assessment of Zobel's claim that Peterson's analytic concepts are wrong and should be rejected?

  1. The claim is dubious because

    Bad Description

    Does she really not have justification to think she's qualified? She does briefly mention that she is "a psychoanalyst myself", so that would be a weird way for us to deny her standing. "We're not even going to evaluate the merits of your argument, Zobel, because you're not even qualified to make an argument on this matter." That would seem like an LSAT flaw, not an LSAT correct answer.

    2% picked this

  2. Correct

    The claim has not been

    Why this is right

    This gets at our objection that all Zobel has done is given us reasons to not put blind faith in Peterson's supporters. The fact that they're biased shows we should take their endorsement of Peterson with a grain of salt. But it in no way proves that Peterson is actually wrong about his ideas. By saying, "Z's evidence could show only X", they're saying "Z's evidence did not prove the actual conclusion".

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

    84% picked this

  3. The claim cannot be evaluated

    Too Strong

    Why are we saying it's impossible for a psychoanalyst to provide an objective assessment? Couldn't it be a blind taste test? If we withhold the person responsible for the analytic concepts and just write out the analytic concepts, couldn't a psychoanalyst provide an objective evaluation? Like (A), this would be a weird correct answer for LSAT, since it's saying that we should disqualify someone's view based on personal characteristics (such as professional bias). That's how ad hominem flaw works, not how a correct answer works. The point of assessing an argument is to talk about how the evidence falls short of proving the conclusion, not to disqualify the speaker from even making an argument.

    3% picked this

  4. The claim is questionable because

    Unsupported

    How is it obvious that Zobel has a rivalry with Peterson? Because she disagrees with Peterson? That doesn't show there's an obvious rivalry. Like (A) and (C), this would be a weird correct answer for LSAT, since it's saying that we should disqualify someone's view based on personal characteristics (such as having a rivalry with someone). That's how ad hominem flaw works, not how a correct answer works. If X has a rivalry with Y, then we take X's comments about Y with a little grain of salt. We'd want some unbiased corroboration. But we don't totally disqualify its legitimacy. The point of assessing an argument is to talk about how the evidence falls short of proving the conclusion, not to disqualify the speaker from even making an argument.

    1% picked this

  5. The claim is acceptable because

    Opposite

    Zobel's argument was badly flawed, not acceptable. She didn't show that Peterson's concepts are biased, only that her supporters are biased in favor of her. She also didn't say that Peterson's concepts were based on emotion, only that emotional bonds with her students is what makes her students have a bias in favor of her.

    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