QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning
CONCLUSION: Morgenstern says Brooks should quit.
REASONING: The main risk to quitting is not finding another job, in which case Brooks would be unhappy. But Brooks is already unhappy.
ANALYSIS: Morgenstern forgets that there are degrees of unhappiness.
You might dislike a job. But you might dislike not finding another job and being a hobo even more.
(I actually recommend leaving jobs you don’t like. You’re not likely to become a hobo. But that’s another story.)
- CORRECT. Sure, you dislike your job. But, you might be much more unhappy if you couldn’t find another job.
- This is code for circular reasoning. Morgenstern did have (flawed) evidence: Brook’s greatest fear has already happened.
(according to Morgenstern)
So the argument isn’t circular.
- Morgenstern was pretty accurate about what Brooks said. Brooks did say he’s unhappy, and Morgenstern correctly identified Brooks’ main worry: not finding another job.
- There’s only one type of risk here: not finding another job. Being unhappy in Brooks’ job isn’t a risk, it’s a certainty. He’s already unhappy.
- Morgenstern didn’t say that everyone who is unhappy should quit their job. He just said that Brooks should. That’s not a generalization.
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly