Q14 - Joshua Smith's new novel was criticized

[b91302310]

I think (A) is fine because the argument mentions that " That criticisim, like so many other criticisms from the same source in the past" . Is it incorrect because the argument does not say that the criticism is from the same source in the past, but says that it is just "like" ?

Could anyone explain it ?

Thanks

[noah]

There are two reasons (B) is incorrect. For one, the premise used to support the conclusion is the discussion of the plausibility of the incidents, not the quality of the source.

Similarly, in the second sentence, where the quality of the source is mentioned, it's not stated to suggest that it's completely unwarranted because it's from that source, but that this criticism of Joshua Smith's novel is similar to many others that this editor has written. It'd be a different story if the sentence said something like "That criticism, because it's from a source which has regularly published unwarranted criticisms in the past, is also unwarranted."

Make sense?

[KakaJaja]

Hi, I think you are explaining about A). Could you tell me why B) is wrong? THX!

[griffin.811]

Well lets assume every event in the novel is plausible. Does that mean the novel as a whole is plausible? Absolutely not.

ex: Lets say I build a house today using only recylcled (meaning old) wood. I just finished the house 2 min ago. Does this mean the house itself is old? Nope the house is new.

The issue is the author assumes that because each individual piece is plausible, that the whole product is plausible.

The LSAT test this "pieces of the whole" issue quite often.

[Mab6q]

Can we get some discussion on why the other answer choices, particularly B, are incorrect.

[Stormexe]

I'm struggling with B as well on this one. I had it down to B and D, but ultimately went with B.

[ohthatpatrick]

Here's a quick, complete explanation.

Flaw

Conc: The criticism of Smith's new novel as 'implausible' is unwarranted.

Conc (rephrased):
Smith's new novel is plausible

Prem (rephrased):
Each one of the incidents that Smith's hero gets into is plausible.

(A) The phrase "like so many other criticisms from the same source in the past" is just filler, not a part of the reasoning. The main premise is the final sentence, so the author isn't relying on the book editor's past judgments. This answer choice describes an argument more like, "Johnny said there's a wolf outside, but the last two times I checked he was wrong, so he must be wrong this time."

This argument is more like, "Johnny said there's a wolf outside, but, like he was the last two times he said such a thing, he's wrong. Wolves don't live in this habitat."

(B) is super cruel. It sounds like it's saying "Just because people who read the book would agree that each incident is plausible, that doesn't mean the book is plausible!" But what it is really saying is "Just because people who read the book would agree that each incident is plausible, that doesn't mean that each incident is plausible!"

But the issue of this argument's conclusion is whether or not the book is plausible. Compare this to correct answer (D), which is saying, "Just because each incident in the novel is plausible, that doesn't mean that the whole novel is plausible."

(C) is like (A). It's accusing the author of just rejecting an argument based on the source. But the author didn't JUST impugn the source. The author also gave what sounds like a substantive piece of evidence: each plot point seems plausible.

(D) as we said above is correct. The premise is about parts of the novel; the conclusion is about the entire novel.

(E) The reason cited is that "anyone who reads the book would agree that each incident is plausible". Is that a statement that most people would believe only if they were already convinced the book was plausible?

Hmmm. I don't know. I think people could agree that the plot points in a book were plausible without having ever considered whether the whole book was plausible. So I don't see where we can justify this.

Let us know you have any remaining questions.

[Camiller]

Hey Patrick, I have a few questions for you. First regarding the rephrasing you used for the argument core, which was:

Conclusion: That criticism of Smith's new novel as 'implausible' is unwarranted.
Conclusion (rephrased): Smith's novel is plausible.

Prem (rephrased): Each one of the incidents that Smith's hero gets into is plausible.

Per LSAT reasoning, is it appropriate to equivocate "That criticism [of Smith's new novel as implausible]...is completely unwarranted" with "Smith's novel is plausible? Is this something that I would be able to use on future questions without getting myself into trouble?

Also, for your rephrased premise, why did you leave out/how did you know to leave out any information marking this as a belief/opinion of others?
When I attempted this problem for the first time, the argument core I developed had the premise: "As anyone who has actually read the novel would agree, each one of the incidents in which Smith's hero gets involved is some kind of incident that could very well be [plausible]." The fact that the argument was essentially based on an opinion of others immediately stood out to me as a major reasoning issue. Consequently, I was completely blinded to the faulty part-to-whole reasoning.

When I initially attempted this problem, I chose incorrect answer choice (B), but I do now see/agree that (D) "is the most serious error of reasoning in the argument", as it seems to encompass (B). I did read your explanation on why (B) is incorrect, and it does make sense to me. However, regardless of whether (B) is incorrect or not for this specific problem (and I do understand that the issue of the argument's conclusion is about whether or not the whole novel is plausible), does (B) accurately describe a reasoning flaw in the argument? Is this an odd question where the specificity of the question stem comes into play? If not, do you have any advice for avoiding sucker choices like (B) in the future? Would you mind illustrating your 'real-time' thought process of how you would have eliminated (B)?

[ohthatpatrick]

What a heart-wrenchingly good, yet impossible question!

I cannot actually explain my realtime thought process, because a lot of what the brain does is spontaneous and intuitive and not something we can fully author or direct.

I've read a lot of LSAT.

There are no absolutes in LSAT. Or it seems like there aren't, at least. Certain examples of questions seem to require styles of thinking that were punished in other problems.

For example, you're scared to go from "calling it 'implausible' was unwarranted" to "it, in fact, IS plausible".

That feels like a "Failure to prove vs. proof of failure" flaw.

But I think saying an accusation is unwarranted is not the same as saying it's unsupported.

Warranted criticism is deserved criticism. So unwarranted criticism is "undeserved criticism". If I say that something didn't deserve that criticism, that suggests that I hold a positive opinion as to the proper critique, not just a rejection of the critic's attempt to build an argument.

Would I ever say these ridiculous thoughts to myself during the test? Heavens, no. This is the analytical stuff that comes out when you're asked to explain your intuition.

So, yes, you could probably add a rule that says "criticism was unwarranted" = "criticism is wrong".

But I wonder if feeding you my retroactively contrived 'rules' is worse than you just developing and trusting your judgment when it comes to how you should interpret that conclusion, on THIS question.

I'm not sure what you saw as the immediate trouble in referring to everyone's opinion on the book, when the conclusion is essentially evaluating an opinion on the book.

Since we're debating the merits / plausibility of a book, we CAN'T really hope to refer to any quantitative data to prove our point. We'd really have to resort to our opinion or those of others.

In the last sentence, I took the author to be saying that this was his impression of the book and that he would expect that everyone else who has read this book would share this impression.

In terms of (B), it is not a flaw to me.
Fails to consider / ignores possibility / neglects possibility
is only a correct answer if the idea it mentions would WEAKEN.

When you see these answers, just ask yourself, "if true, would it weaken?"

(B) says, "People can agree about something, but be WRONG. So maybe people could agree this novel is plausible, but be WRONG, and the critic is right to say that the novel is implausible."

That would definitely weaken the argument.

Unfortunately, people did NOT agree this novel is plausible. They (hypothetically) agreed that EACH INCIDENT is plausible. So if they're wrong about that, they're not dealing with our conclusion. They're not addressing whether the WHOLE NOVEL is plausible. So the move (B) tries to make gets us from Premise to anti-premise, not Premise to anti-Conclusion.

Hope this helps.