LSAT 151 | Section 4 | Logical Reasoning: Q11

LR Question 11 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: A new treatment for muscle pain that looked very…

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Parallel Reasoning

CONCLUSION: The treatment is probably bad.

REASONING: Three studies failed to prove the treatment is good.

ANALYSIS: This argument has a common flaw structure: it treats absence of evidence as evidence the thing is bad.

This kind of argument makes no sense. You can’t prove something right by making a bad argument against it! In the case of the treatment, we need actual evidence about the treatment in order to form a conclusion.

To parallel this, look for an answer that says “the evidence we have is flawed, so the thing must be bad”

___________

1. CORRECT. This is close enough. Lack of uniform criteria is analogous to methodological flaws. In each case, the higher level flaw is as follows:

   1. We had a reason for thinking the thing was good: “promising studies/baking award”
   2. There was a problem with the evidence: “Methodological flaws/no uniform criteria”
   3. So, the thing must be bad: “Bad treatment/bad cake”

   In each case, it’s possible that the treatment works even if we can’t prove it, and it’s possible the cake is tasty even though the judges are lousy.

2. This doesn’t follow, but it doesn’t have the same flaw as the stimulus. The flaw here is that some people might need the fish, and so they fish even though they’re bad at it. (i.e. poor people trying to feed their families). Or, maybe people just really want to catch fish, but are sadly bad at it.
    
   But this is not the same flaw as saying something is bad because the evidence is bad.
3. This is a different kind of flaw: a part to whole flaw. It’s possible to have a balanced diet even if some foods in that diet aren’t that useful. This should have said “we don’t know that the foods are good, so the diet must be bad”
4. This is terrible reasoning, but it hasn’t made the same flaw. To match the stimulus, it should have said something like “we can’t prove the scarf is decorative, so it must be functional”
    
   The actual flaw in this argument is inconsistency. All scarves share many qualities: they provide warmth, sun protection, decoration. This argument says if scarves somewhat serve a purpose, they must purely serve that purpose. This makes no sense; by this argument’s logic, scarves must have originally been purely decorative, purely sun protectors, and purely for warmth. Which is not possible. You can’t purely be three things at once.
5. This is an ad hominem flaw. Sometimes people can be right even if they have self interest.
    
   It’s a different flaw from the stimulus, which didn’t match people’s character at all.