QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning
CONCLUSION: The report is wrong.
REASONING: The report has potential bias.
ANALYSIS: This argument makes a classic LSAT error: an ad hominem attack. Bias is relevant to whether an argument might be wrong, but it can’t be your only evidence.
The consumer should have actually attacked the claim that Ocksenfrey’s foods lacked nutritional value. It’s possible that the Connorly Report is accurate despite Danto Food’s bias.
- CORRECT. This describes an ad hominem flaw, which was the flaw in the argument.
- Unrepresentative samples involve looking at part of a group. Here, the consumer is looking at all of Ocksenfrey’s prepackaged meals.
Example of unrepresentative sample: We looked at one moldy old prepackaged food. It was gross. Therefore all prepackaged foods are gross.
- It’s possible that Ocksenfrey has bias. But Ocksenfrey’s claims (if any) aren’t at issue in this argument, so this answer is irrelevant.
- The argument didn’t say anything about the quality of Danto’s products. The consumer was only talking about the quality of Ocksenfrey. Danto’s quality isn’t relevant.
- This sounds good, but it’s irrelevant. The consumer isn’t talking about drafts that are hostile to Danto. They’re only referring to reports about Ocksenfrey.
Want advanced LR strategies? → Try the LR Mastery Seminar
Graeme shows how 170+ scorers do LR in real time. Satisfaction guaranteed!