LSAT 36, Logical Reasoning II, Q8, LSATHacks

QUESTION TEXT: Essayist: Knowledge has been defined as a…

QUESTION TYPE: Method of Reasoning

CONCLUSION: The criticisms of the claim are unfounded.

REASONING: “True Belief formed by a reliable process ? Knowledge” is the claim.

Some people argue that even if clairvoyance produced a true belief by a reliable process, we still wouldn’t believe it.

The Essayist agrees that we wouldn’t believe the claims, but argues that it is only because we don’t trust clairvoyance is a reliable process.

But if we believed in clairvoyance then we would also accept that it produced knowledge.

ANALYSIS: This argument makes a good point. The example of clairvoyance just shows that we don’t believe in the reliability of clairvoyance. It can’t disprove anything about a general theory of how knowledge is produced when we believe in a process. That’s because we don’t believe in the process of clairvoyance.

Our disbelief in clairvoyance’s claims might not be because we have a different theory of knowledge.

___________

1. CORRECT. Our beliefs about the predictions of clairvoyance are the reason we don’t trust the claims. It isn’t because we have a different theory of knowledge.
2. The essayist agrees that we reject the claims of clairvoyance. So it hasn’t allowed us to form knowledge (true beliefs.)
3. Same as B. The essayist agrees that we reject the claims of clairvoyance. And the argument didn’t say such claims are wrong.
4. The essayist argues for a single definition of knowledge: A true belief formed by a reliable process results in knowledge.
5. The argument says that clairvoyance could be a case of knowledge if we believed it, so it can fit the definition.

LawHub Order

LawHub Order

---