QUESTION TEXT: Pediatrician: Swollen tonsils give rise to breathing…
QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning
CONCLUSION: Removing tonsils early will prevent all sleeping problems in children.
REASONING: Tonsils can sometimes cause sleeping problems, and removing them can help.
ANALYSIS: This is an awful argument. There are thousands of reasons a child could have sleeping problems. Removing tonsils eliminates one possible cause. Tonsils are not the only cause of sleep problems.
Something can be a cause without being a necessary cause.
___________
- The pediatrician is a relevant authority. And the pediatrician presents evidence; they are not asking us to take their word for it.
Example of flaw: I’m a wealthy industrialist. I feel that children should have their tonsils removed, so clearly I’m right. - This answer refers to circular reasoning. That’s a different flaw – the evidence and the conclusion have to be exactly the same.
Example of flaw: Children would have no sleep problems if they had their tonsils removed, because removing tonsils eliminates sleep problems. - This is a different flaw.
Example of flaw: Removing tonsils reduces infections, and also reduces sleep problems. So clearly doctors that remove tonsils are intending to cure sleep problems and not just reduce infections. - This is a different flaw.
Example of flaw: One possible reason for removing tonsils is to reduce sleep problems. So clearly, this child’s tonsils were removed to reduce sleep problems, and not for any other reason. - CORRECT. Maybe sleep problems are caused by fear of monsters under the bed, or playing too many video games late at night. There are a million-and-one reasons a child could have trouble sleeping, even if they have their tonsils removed.
Recap: The question begins with “Pediatrician: Swollen tonsils give rise to breathing”. It is a Flawed Reasoning question. To practice more Flawed Reasoning questions, have a look at the LSAT Questions by Type page.
Free Logical Reasoning lesson
Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions
Jane says
Could you give an example of a flaw similar to C?
Thank you!
TutorLucas (LSAT Hacks) says
No problem. Here’s one:
PlastikPro’s waste management team regularly dumps hazardous materials into the river, thereby polluting the water and surrounding environment. Therefore, PlastikPro must intend to contaminate the water and harm the environment.
Action: Dumping of hazardous material into the river
Effect: Pollution of water and surrounding environment
The effect isn’t PlastikPro’s intention–the intention of the action is to dispose of their hazardous wastes.
Mahdi says
Your explanations and examples of other flaws are the best! Thank you so much for all of the free material.