LSAT 159 | Section 1 | Logical Reasoning: Q15

LR Question 15 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Faculty member: The university’s financially minded president …

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

CONCLUSION: The president is wrong. Academic programs should not follow demand.

REASONING: The president analogized a university to a business. But a university is not a business. Therefore, the president’s conclusion is also wrong.

ANALYSIS: The faculty member has shown that the university president has made a bad argument for responding to student demand. The business analogy is not good evidence.

But that doesn’t prove the president’s conclusion false. There can be other reasons the university should respond to student demand, even if the analogy is false.

A view can still be true even if someone argues for it badly. To say “we can ignore student demand” you need to provide your own evidence for why that is true.

___________

1. ….this answer isn’t a flaw? You’re allowed to argue for something without proving that every opposite argument is wrong. There are millions of bad arguments, there’s no rule that says you need to disprove them all. If your argument is sound, you’re correct.
    
   Further, in this case, the faculty member did the exact opposite. They argued against the president’s reasoning, but provided no evidence that their own view succeeds.
2. There’s no appeal to popular opinion. We don’t know what anyone except the president and this faculty member thinks about the issue.
   Example of flaw: The president must be wrong because most people agree with me.

3. It’s the president who is criticized for an analogy, not the faculty member. We’re looking for the flaw in the faculty member’s reasoning.

   Further, this is a very specific flaw that even the president didn’t say. To make this mistake, you have to:

   1. Argue that two things are different but related, then
   2. Forget what you said and argue the two things are identical

   The president, by contrast, appears to sincerely believe a university is a business, and never said there is any difference between the two.

   Example of flaw: A bicycle is analogous to an airplane, in that they are both means of transport. Therefore, a bicycle must literally be an airplane, and so I can fly a bicycle to Europe.

4. This is describing an ad hominem flaw. But the faculty member never mentions the president’s character.
   Example of flaw: The president only wants to cut programs because he’s greedy and cares about money. So, his argument about serving student demand must be wrong.
5. CORRECT. To make your point you can’t just prove someone else wrong. You also have to prove yourself right, and the faculty member didn’t do that.
   Example of flaw: Some people say that I should vote so people will think I’m a responsible citizen. But I don’t care what other people think, so it would be bad for me to vote.