Q1 - Mary to Jamal: You acknowledge

[mshinners]

What does the Question Stem tell us?
This is a Flaw question. We're being asked about the flaw in Mary's reasoning, so we need a clear understanding of her argument.

Break down the Stimulus:
Mary's conclusion is that Jamal's statements, taken together, are absurd. What are those statements? Jamal acknowledges that Mary has the legal right to sell her business whenever she wishes, but at the same time she has no right to do so because loyal employees will suffer if she does. We can see why this seems absurd: how can Jamal say that she has the right to do so, but at the same time doesn't?

Any prephrase?
It's important to notice the specific wording in the stimulus. Jamal acknowledges that Mary has the "legal right" to sell her business, but later claims that she has "no right" to do so. Aren't there types of rights other than legal rights? What about basic, ethical human rights? Maybe that's what Jamal is referring to in his latter statement. If so, his statements aren't necessarily absurd.

Answer choice analysis:
A) If this is true, it makes Mary's argument more convincing. Jamal acknowledges that Mary has the legal right to sell her business "whenever she wishes." If his latter statement is supposed to mean that she has "no right to do so at this time," that would be pretty absurd.

B) This answer is appealing at first glance, so we might not eliminate it right away, but a closer look reveals that it's out of scope. The employees might have rights, too, but that by itself wouldn't justify Jamal's claim that Mary has "no right" to sell. There could be situations where the rights of loyal employees would totally override the rights of the owner, but we have no way of knowing if that's the case here.

C) Mary doesn't need to provide evidence that she does have a right to sell the business. Jamal acknowledged that she has a legal right to do so. Mary's argument is based on an apparent conflict between Jamal's own acknowledgement and his later claim.

D) Correct. If Jamal's statement that Mary "has no right" is referring to something other than a legal right, Mary's conclusion doesn't hold up.

E) Mary doesn't attack Jamal's character.

Takeaway/Pattern: Notice when a particular term is used in a premise, and the conclusion contains a term that is similar but could have a significantly different meaning. Logical Reasoning arguments are often flawed because of these "term shifts."

#officialexplanation

[imasexybastard]

Hey guys, I'm having a little difficulty in seeing why B is wrong and why D is right. I see the first kind of "right" in the argument--legal. Is the second kind of right moral?

[gotomedschool]

yeah. you have the legal right to cheat on your girlfriend if you choose to do so but it might not be morally right.

jamal has the legal right to sell his businesses whenever but it's not morally right for him to do so because his 14 cousins all work for him and he'll have to fire them and leave them jobless.

[bbirdwell]

I agree that "moral" is the second kind of right. Just remember that it's not important that we be able to name it - as long as we can recognize that he's using the word in a different way: "legal right" vs "no right to do so."

[chike_eze]

yeah. you have the legal right to cheat on your girlfriend if you choose to do so but it might not be morally right.

jamal has the legal right to sell his businesses whenever but it's not morally right for him to do so because his 14 cousins all work for him and he'll have to fire them and leave them jobless.

Really good example to drive home this flaw. Thanks!

[steves]

I agree that "moral" is the second kind of right. Just remember that it's not important that we be able to name it - as long as we can recognize that he's using the word in a different way: "legal right" vs "no right to do so."

I can see why (D) is correct, but still not sure why (B) is wrong. Is it because of the word "overlooks?" I can see that Mary is disagreeing over rather than overlooking whether employees have rights. I'd be more convinced if (B) referred to "legal rights."

[rinagoldfield]

Really good question, Steves. Here’s my take:

Even if employees do have rights vis-à-vis the sale, Jamal’s assertion that Mary has the right to sell the business whenever she wants remains absurd. So while it may be true that the employees have rights, pointing that out doesn’t show a flaw in Mary’s reasoning. The only way to show that, in fact, Jamal’s argument may not be absurd is to point out the different meanings of the word “right.”

What do you think?

[steves]

Really good question, Steves. Here’s my take:

Even if employees do have rights vis-à-vis the sale, Jamal’s assertion that Mary has the right to sell the business whenever she wants remains absurd. So while it may be true that the employees have rights, pointing that out doesn’t show a flaw in Mary’s reasoning. The only way to show that, in fact, Jamal’s argument may not be absurd is to point out the different meanings of the word “right.”

What do you think?

Thanks, Rina. I don't see an issue or conflict over Mary having the right to sell. Your explanation helps to reinforce that our task is to identify under which answer the statements together are not absurd--i.e., don't contradict each other. I agree that the only way to show they do not conflict is to establish different definitions of "right." So (B) would actually strengthen the contradiction rather than weaken it. However, (B) could be seen to show why contradictory statements are OK (and maybe not absurd). In real life, the owner and employees could both have legal rights--and in that situation be accurate, but perhaps still absurd. But I can see that the LSAT might not want us to consider those options.

[Laura Damone]

Full Explanation:

What does the stem tell us: “vulnerable to criticism” makes this a Flaw question.

Breakdown the stimulus: Mary is responding to a statement Jamal made that we don’t get to see, but we can infer what he said based on her response. He seems to have told her that she has the legal right to sell her business but because doing so would cause suffering, she has no right to do so. Mary thinks that’s bogus, because rights are rights, right?

Any prephrase: Actually, they’re not. If you say to someone “you have no right to call me names,” you’re not saying that they no longer have the right to free speech. You’re saying that they don’t have the moral right to make fun of you, even though it’s technically legal. Jamal seems to have used the word “right” in two different ways in his argument, but Mary is mistakenly treating the word the same in both contexts. This is a classic Equivocation flaw.

A) out of scope. Time isn’t relevant here.

B) tempting, because Mary seems to be doing this if she wants to sell (so selfish). But her actual argument isn’t about wanting to sell. It’s about refuting Jamal. His argument doesn’t feature in this choice, so it’s incorrect.

C) contradicted. Her right to sell hinges on her legitimate ownership, referenced in lines one and two.

D)correct! A classic presentation of a classic flaw

E) tempting, because she calls Jamal’s argument “absurd.” But remember it’s his argument she’s accusing, not Jamal as a person, so this attack is not of the Ad Hominem variety.

Takeaway/Pattern: Recognize those classic flaws for prephrasing and process of elimination!

[VendelaG465]

so just to clarify B is wrong because it is solely focusing on the workers rights not necessarily Jamal definition of "right"?

[VendelaG465]

btw can someone please post a break down of the diagram? premise & conclusion ? I was a bit confused on how to draw this one out.

[ohthatpatrick]

Correct, the argument is about whether or not Jamal's pair of statements, taken together, are absurd.

(B) has nothing to do with either of Jamal's statements, since his statements were about whether or not Mary had certain rights (not at all about whether employees had rights).

In terms of breaking down the argument ...

CONCLUSION:
Jamal's statements, taken together, are absurd

EVIDENCE:
Jamal stated that Mary has a legal right to sell the business she owns
and
Jamal stated that Mary has no right to sell the business because employees will suffer

Our thinking task is this: "How can we reconcile Jamal's seemingly contradictory statements so that they don't seem absurd?"

The answer: "We're talking about two different rights. She HAS a legal right. She DOESN'T HAVE a moral right. Since the two statements were talking about different rights, Jamal has not contradicted himself."

Hope this helps.