QUESTION TEXT: Critic: Fillmore, an influential television executive…
QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning
CONCLUSION: Fillmore is wrong.
REASONING: Fillmore’s argument benefits Fillmore.
ANALYSIS: This question makes an ad hominem flaw. The author notes that, as a television executive, Fillmore stands to benefit if very young children watch TV.
It’s fine to point out a conflict of interest. But that can’t be your entire argument: a conflict of interest proves nothing on its own. The critic didn’t show any evidence that Fillmore is actually wrong.
___________
- This didn’t happen.
Example of flaw: Fillmore said that children can benefit from TV (TV –> B). Therefore, Fillmore argued that only TV is beneficial for children (B –> TV). - This is a different flaw.
Example of flaw: Fillmore said that TV is fine because there’s no evidence that it’s bad. - CORRECT. This correctly describes an ad hominem flaw.
- This is a different flaw.
Example of flaw: TV is bad for children. My uncle Sam said so. He never had children, and he has never watched TV. But he’s pretty smart, so he must be right. - This is a different flaw. It’s very rare for an author to contradict themselves. In fact, this is so rare that it’s hard to come up with an example.
Example of flaw: John says that dogs are the best pets and that cats are even better pets than dogs.
Free Logical Reasoning lesson
Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions
Leave a Reply