QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning
CONCLUSION: The critique is without merit.
REASONING: The doctor probably has personal reasons to claim the drug is safe.
ANALYSIS: Personal bias doesn’t make an argument wrong. You should never attack the person making an argument. You should attack their reasons.
The doctor might be right, even if he benefits from his opinions.
- It doesn’t matter whether the critique was broad. The conclusion refers only to the claims about the drug.
- The argument hasn’t said that having even a slight degree of connection to a company means that a person can’t be trusted. The doctor is employed by the company. That’s a pretty close connection. So this only implies the author believes that close connections harm objectivity.
- Why would the author be biased against the drug? The argument didn’t ignore this possibility. The author argued that the doctor was biased against the drug.
- CORRECT. It’s possible the doctor had good reasons to argue the drug is safe. Personal benefit doesn’t automatically make you wrong.
- Nonsense that uses relevant terms to sound plausible. This just says he might have been wrong for reasons other than personal bias. But we want to prove the doctor was right.
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly