Laura Damone
Thanks Received: 94
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 468
Joined: February 17th, 2011
 
This post thanked 1 time.
 
 

Q11 - Psychologist: Specialists naturally tend to view

by Laura Damone Fri Jan 10, 2020 8:07 pm

Question Type:
ID the Flaw

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: When geneticists claim that traits not traditionally thought to be genetic are, in fact, genetic, we are justified in being skeptical.

Evidence: Specialists naturally view their own specialties as fundamentally important.

Intermediate Conclusion: Geneticists are probably amplifying their own sense of importance when they claim things are genetic that aren't traditionally held to be.

Answer Anticipation:
Ad Hominem! Sure, specialists think their specialties are…well…special. But evolutions in genetics are going to happen. We shouldn't be skeptical of them just because geneticists think their field is important. We have no actual evidence that geneticists are just stroking their own egos with their claims.

Correct answer:
E

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Unrepresentative Sample Flaw! Tempting. This argument does deal with specialists in general and a particular subset of specialists: geneticists. However, for an argument to have an Unrepresentative Sample Flaw, it would need to have a premise about the subset and project what we learned about the subset onto specialists generally. That's not what happens here. In this argument, the premise is a general principle about specialists which is then applied to the subset, geneticists. Eliminate!

(B) Also tempting…the argument wants us to be skeptical about innovations. But this argument doesn't imply that we should stick with tradition simply because it's traditional. All the evidence is about specialists and their motives.

(C) Circular Reasoning! This is tempting, too, because the intermediate conclusion sounds a lot like the main conclusion. But, the intermediate conclusion doesn't deal with our skepticism, and that's a big enough difference that the argument isn't actually circular.

(D) Appeal to Inappropriate Authority! Nope, that's not what's happening here. We aren't appealing to geneticists about something outside their field.

(E) Finally, Ad Hominem! We're attacking geneticists motives rather than the substance of their claims.

Takeaway/Pattern:
Ad Hominem arguments tend to play out in two ways on the LSAT: Either we accuse someone of hypocrisy, or we accuse someone of having ulterior motives. Recognizing this flaw by name, and the others by name in the answer choices, ensures that you can cut through the wrong answers quickly.

#officialexplanation
Laura Damone
LSAT Content & Curriculum Lead | Manhattan Prep