LSAT 155 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q11

LR Question 11 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Psychologist: Specialists naturally tend to view their own …

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

CONCLUSION: When geneticists claim certain personality traits are genetically determined, even though those traits are not traditionally thought to be genetically determined, we are justified in being skeptical

REASONING: Specialists tend to think their specialty is fundamentally important. When the geneticists attribute these traits to genetics, they are probably just amplifying their own importance.

ANALYSIS: Here, the author says the geneticists are just saying the traits are genetically determined because they think their field is fundamentally important. However, the only justification for this is that sometimes specialists do that. There’s no consideration for the possibility that the geneticists have actual evidence for the claim – the author assumes that because they’re specialists, they’re probably making it up.

___________

1. This isn’t what the author is doing. The author is never talking about a sample of geneticists.
2. This answer looks appealing, but it’s not the main flaw in the author’s reasoning. They do argue that the traditional view is correct, but not because it’s always been considered correct. They have a different reason for their beliefs.
3. The conclusion is not a restatement of a premise. The conclusion is that we are justified in being skeptical, which is not a premise.
4. The argument is never appealing to authority.
5. CORRECT. The author says that specialists tend to inflate their own self-importance, and then attacks the geneticists’ claim on that basis. They never actually address the merit of the claim itself. This is called an “ad hominem” attack.

Recap: The question begins with “Psychologist: Specialists naturally tend to view their own “. It is a Flawed Reasoning question. Learn how to master LSAT Flaw questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.