Let me circle back to a couple of the lingering questions.
There were several posters saying that the only premise in this argument was that "the failed attempts have been so numerous", and that structurally this implies what (B) is saying, that "the number of failed attempts is the only relevant factor".
The "failed attempts have been so numerous" is NOT the only premise.
As one poster wrote ...
secretad22 Wrote:The core of the fortune-teller's argument is this:
Has not been scientifically proven that ESP does not exist
+
Numerous failed attempts to prove no ESP.
= There are ESP capable people.
This person correctly identified the structure, which is
Prem1 + Prem 2 --> Conc
You can tell from the use of "Furthermore" that the author has more than one premise.
The author's most important premise is definitely the first one, (the 'fundamental fact') that NO ONE has EVER proven that ESP does not exist.
The second one is just some additional filler saying, "And, p.s., they've tried a whole bunch of times to do so."
So for this argument, the whole debate over whether "only one premise" implies "it's the only relevant idea" is a moot point. This argument has two premises.
[incidentally, I think the most recent question about Brian's example vs. pg. 226 of LR is a tricky one because Brian's example was a subjective first person argument, so it's kinda hard to talk about falsifying it. We can't really fight the idea that he DIDN'T enjoy breakfast, if he says he did.
If we go a little more third person and say
Bob thought his food was tasty. Therefore, Bob must have enjoyed his breakfast.
Then we are assuming that 'tasty food is sufficient to guarantee enjoyment'. That means we're also assuming 'there are not other factors that would override Bob's tasty food and cause him to NOT enjoy his breakfast' (like bad service ... running into his ex-girlfriend ... thinking the food was overpriced).
Essentially, that argument had to assume that no other factors could PREVENT him from enjoying his breakfast.
It does not have to assume that no other factors WOULD BE SUFFICIENT to guarantee his enjoyment.
And when we say "tasty food is the ONLY relevant factor to enjoying breakfast", we're pulling in both categories of ideas, so that idea is just too strong, too broad to be accurate.]
Another question posed was whether (B) would be valid if the word 'only' were removed.
Since the author mentioned the number of failed attempts as one of his premises, the author clearly is assuming that "the number of failed attempts" IS a relevant factor. So modified-(B) would be saying something accurate.
But remember, accuracy is not the only test of a Flaw answer choice.
To be correct, a Flaw answer choice has to say something
1. true about the argument (did this happen?)
2. relevant to the reasoning gap (is this a reasoning flaw?)
If we read an argument that said:
Bob is left handed. Thus, Bob is clumsy.
and an answer choice said
(B) the author fails to consider that mustard is delicious.
It is TRUE that the author did fail to consider this. BUT, that has nothing to do with the reasoning gap.
However, if we negated modified-(B), we'd get "the number of unsuccessful attempts to prove a claim is NOT a relevant factor", which would Weaken the argument, by denying the author one of his premises.
Naturally, LSAT would never offer us this modified-(B) and (E) at the same time (and if they did, E would win because it's commenting on the more egregious reasoning problem).
Hope this helps.