LSAT 131 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q6

LR Question 6 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Although Jaaks is a respected historian, her negative review

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

CONCLUSION: Jaaks’ negative review of Yancey’s book relies on a mistake.

REASONING: Jaaks argued that Yancey misrepresented the lives of fishery workers. However, Yancey used the same research methods she used in her other, popular books.

ANALYSIS: This argument mistakes popularity for correctness.

___________

1. Actually, the author didn’t rely on a scholar. The author makes their argument using facts about Yancey’s books.
   Example of flaw: The scholar Ben Smith argues that Yancey is correct. Ben Smith is an expert in the history of ancient Egypt. We can therefore say that Jaaks is wrong.
2. This is a different flaw: an ad hominem flaw.
   Example of flaw: Yancy smells bad. He is therefore wrong about everything. I hate him.
3. CORRECT. The author’s only evidence is that Yancey’s books are popular. That doesn’t make them right.
4. This is a different flaw.
   Example of flaw: Yancey’s history books are about fishing. So all history books are about fishing.
5. This is an insane answer choice. The author didn’t say it. If an author didn’t do something, it can’t be the flaw.
   Example of flaw: Yancey interviewed fishery workers. Since this method worked, all other methods are wrong! Historical research using books. The study of private letters. Archaeological digs. Carbon dating. It’s all utterly ineffective!