Logical Reasoning

PT18 · S2 · Q17 Biographer: Arnold’s belief that every offer

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

Biographer: Arnold’s belief that every offer of assistance on the part of his colleagues was a disguised attempt to make him look inadequate and that no expression of congratulations on his promotion should be taken at face value may seem irrational.

Conclusion

Arnold was right to think that his colleagues were lying / faking (duplicitous).

Evidence

At first blush, it might seem paranoid / irrational of Arnold to think 1. any time a colleague offers help, they're just trying to make him look inadequate 2. anyone who expressed congratulations at his promotion was just saying that for some ulterior motive (shouldn't be taken as face value)

But, his older sister really messed him up as a kid, making fun of his ambitions and achievements.

Evaluate

The psychological backstory of Arnold certainly explains why he's so paranoid about his coworkers' offering help or offering their (potentially sincere) congratulations.

But it doesn't mean that we suddenly start believing that Arnold is correct!

Goal

Look for an argument saying,

17.

The flawed reasoning in the biographer’s argument is most similar to that in which one of the following?

The fact that top executives
Bad Premise Match
In the original argument, Arnold had no support for his paranoid beliefs. But in this argument, Sheldon actually has some support -- it's a fact that top execs generally have much larger vocabularies than their subordinates do.
15% picked this
Emily suspected that apples are
Bad Premise Match
In the original argument, Arnold had no support for his paranoid beliefs. But in this argument, Emily actually has some support -- there's evidence that apples treated with certain pesticides can be health hazards.
10% picked this
Correct
As a child, Joan was
Why this is right
This replicates the flaw that "even though we now know the backstory for X's crazy belief, we shouldn't be acting like X is correct to believe that". There's no actual support for X's belief, just a scarring childhood backstory to X's current mentality. Joan has no good reason to believe that cats are not good pets, so the author shouldn't be labeling that belief as justified.
Skill tested: Parallel Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
70% picked this
Studies show that when usually
Bad Premise Match
In the original argument, Arnold had no support for his paranoid beliefs. But in this argument, there is some support for the adults' suspicion that misbehavior must always be paid for -- studies show that when good kids go bad, they get viral infections the next day.
1% picked this
Sumayia’s father and mother were
Bad Premise Match
In the original argument, Arnold had no support for his paranoid beliefs. But in this argument, Sumayia is pulling on some potentially relevant experience -- she's actually known a lot of people who were, or were trying to be, professional musicians. Her opinion is certainly not "undoubtedly justified", but it should still be regarded with some credence. She probably has a lot of basis for comparison, when it comes to whether Anthony's habits, determination, and drive match what she's seen in her parents and her other musical acquaintances.
4% 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