LSAT 158 | Section 4 | Logical Reasoning: Q5

LR Question 5 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: The railway authority inspector who recently thoroughly…

QUESTION TYPE: Parallel Reasoning

CONCLUSION: The reporter’s claim that the train tracks are in poor condition is doubtful.

REASONING: The inspector said the tracks were in good condition when he checked recently. The inspector doesn’t have a bias.

ANALYSIS: The LSAT defers to experts. Here, the railway inspector is a relevant authority. He has no bias and he has expertise. So, we should err on the side of believing the railway inspector instead of the reporter. To parallel the argument, look for an unbiased expert who has made a recent inspection.

It is commonly taught that arguments from authority are wrong. This is not exactly correct. An argument isn’t correct merely because it comes from authority, and experts can be wrong. But, they often are right! The LSAT recognizes this and expects you to grant credence to relevant experts unless there is some reason to doubt them.

___________

1. This is a reasonable argument and it makes an appeal to a relevant authority. However, here there is no conflict between two people. Whereas in the stimulus the reporter disagreed with the railway expert.
2. CORRECT. Like our train inspector, Gardner is a relevant authority (paleontologist) with no bias. Because Gardner says the bones aren’t from dinosaurs, this answer defers to him and says Penwick’s claim that the bones are from dinosaurs is probably wrong.
3. Here the engineer is a relevant authority (good) but he is employed by the company which maintains the bridge. Hence, his employer may have an interest in declaring the bridge safe. Whereas the railway inspector was unbiased.
4. The reporter is from a paper with “opposition leanings” which insinuates that the reporter is biased. Our original stimulus says that the authority figure has not biases. It also doesn’t conclude we should be skeptical of the reporter’s claims.
5. This one immediately dismisses an authority figure’s claims without citing an opposing claim first.

Recap: The question begins with “The railway authority inspector who recently thoroughly”. It is a Parallel Reasoning question. Learn how to master LSAT Parallel questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.